Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Virtually all life on this planet would cease without co2 in the atmosphere.
And too much can disrupt photosynthesis. Too much heats up the planet casuing moisture to evaporate defeating the purpose of Co2 emissions and even messes up the sone plants ability to fight diseases.
Humans survived the last Inter-Glacial Period when average global temperatures were 10.4°F warmer than present.
I guess that makes them a helluva lot more intelligent than us.
Why would I care if they survived it or not? Humans also survived the bubonic plague. That doesn't mean it was a good thing.
Quote:
There are valid alternative explanations, but the global warming crowd refuses to consider them.
Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 ever could be.
I don't know if water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than C02 or not...but again...I don't know why I'd care. If anything, that just causes more problems because the warmer Earth gets, the more water vapor will go into our atmosphere, which could act as a feedback loop. I know water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Quote:
That's a thermal image of New York City.
Not only do urban areas absorb heat, they retain heat.
According to an EPA study conducted by the Obama Administration, annual mean air temperature of a city with one million people or more can be 1.8°F to 5.4°F warmer than surrounding areas. In the evening, the difference can be as much as 22°F, as rural areas quickly cool down after sunset, while cities maintain their heat.
If you're using data collected from a temperature sensor in an urban area, then not only are you wrong, but you're also committing scientific fraud.
The collection of such data would skew the results, leading to the false misrepresentation that temperatures are increasing, when in fact they may not.
For example, on Tuesday, July 19, 2016, temperatures were in the mid-70s at the major airports in New York City, and just outside the city, but it was about 10° cooler just 30 miles to the west in northern New Jersey. Farther to the north and west, temperatures in the most rural areas of northern New Jersey and the Hudson Valley of New York were up to 15° cooler than La Guardia Airport.
That's because of the Urban Heat Island effect.
Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small: https://www.skepticalscience.com/urb...and-effect.htm
Quote:
That's an unsubstantiated claim that first originated with Carl Sagan.
No one actually knows when the Sun formed. It's assumed the Solar System formed 4.6 Billion years ago, but that's based on Wasserburg's identification of the oldest known meteorite at 4.57 Billion years, but it's now generally accepted the Sun was formed 5 Billion years ago.
However, assuming the Sun was fainter, it wasn't fainter for 3 Billion years.
The guru and architect of global warming claims burning all existing fossil fuels will cause a runaway greenhouse effect:
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "[i]f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
If a runaway greenhouse effect didn't happen in that 500 Million year period when O2 was first forming and only made up 3% to 7% of the atmosphere (it's 21% today) with CO2 being double and triple that, then it isn't going to happen in 50 Million years or 5 Million years or 500,000 years or 50,000 years or even 5,000 years.
And note there wasn't a runaway greenhouse effect during the Mesozoic Period (which includes the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous Periods).
I don't care that much whether we'll turn Earth into Venus or not. This planet could become miserable long before then. That's what we should strive to avoid...making life on Earth more miserable, and global warming will exponentially increase Earth's temperature, unless human actions are modified. No matter how slowly that happens, you can't really adapt comfortably to perpetually increasing temperatures. They just keep getting harder and harder to adapt to.
Also, regardless of how old the sun is, the thought is that it'll get warmer with time...keeping in mind that type of warming is not seen as what's causing modern global warming. I'm talking about a time scale of billions of years, of course. It's actually cooling a bit now, but on average, it's been growing warmer over time, so in the past it was probably cooler:
8] In a way the robustness of the luminosity evolution of stellar models is not surprising, since the gradual rise in solar luminosity is a simple physical consequence of the way the Sun generates energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen to helium in its core. Over time, helium nuclei accumulate, increasing the mean molecular weight within the core. For a stable, spherical distribution of mass, twice the total kinetic energy is equal to the absolute value of the potential energy. According to this virial theorem, the Sun's core contracts and heats up to keep the star stable, resulting in a higher energy conversion rate and hence a higher luminosity. There seems no possibility for escape [Gough, 1981, p. 28]: “The gradual increase in luminosity during the core hydrogen burning phase of evolution of a star is an inevitable consequence of Newtonian physics and the functional dependence of the thermonuclear reaction rates on density, temperature and composition.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2011RG000375
Yikes that is global warming gone mad. Although unlikely to affect us in our human lifetimes it does throw up an interesting observation. Stars become brighter as they age, this would seem to defy common sense. Fires here on Earth don’t appear to become brighter as they use up their fuel. The embers of a fire are definitely dimmer. So why does the Sun get brighter as it ages? To answer this we need to look at how the Sun burns its fuel. https://www.learnastronomyhq.com/art...-brighter.html
During the Ordovician, solar output was 4% lower than current levels, and there was a large continent over the South Pole. Consequently, CO2 levels at around 1,000 to 2,300 ppm were actually low enough to promote glaciation in the southern continent of Gondwana. Ample geological and geochemical evidence points to strong weathering in parallel with the cooling of the Ordovician climate. Since rock weathering reduces atmospheric CO2, this again reinforces the scientific fact that CO2 is a strong driver of climate. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2011RG000375
Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels. The combined net effect from CO2 and solar variations are shown in Figure 2. Periods of geographically widespread ice are indicated by shaded areas. https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2...termediate.htm
Quote:
Temperatures weren't that different:
The earliest evidence for glaciation comes from the late Archean and early Proterozoic, which suggests Earth at this time experienced global temperatures not much different from those today.
The Paleoproterozoic snowball Earth: A climate disaster triggered by the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis
You can find lots of articles questioning why the Earth wasn't a block of ice in it's earlier years, due the sun being so much cooler. It's called the "faint young sun paradox."
Politicians strive for consensus. Consensus has no place in science.
That happened during the previous Inter-Glacial Period, too. The Greenland Ice-Sheet nearly melted in its entirety.
Cut-off government funding. It there's any truth, then the private sector will pick up the tab.
You mean the companies who no doubt despise anything that might result from admitting global warming is man-made, such as carbon taxes or pollution prohibitions? Why the heck would those sorts of companies hire honest climate scientists? Sure, you'd get some solar panel companies and windmill companies to do it...but they're not going to be able to afford the type of resources oil companies can. Our "climate science" would come from Exxon Mobil and Ford.
Quote:
What does it matter?
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 10.4°F warmer, and it is just as likely this Inter-Glacial Period will warm the same amount, and if it should, what then?
You're still in the same boat.
You know there's a difference between being a tribe who lives in easily movable teepees or caves or easily producible yurts and a people who construct massive skyskrapers, right?
They get up and walk about a mile inland and they're fine. You can't do that with New York Skyscrapers
Quote:
Nice deflection, and attempt to twist and distort, but then you really have problems dealing with facts.
Urban heat islands are very real, and any data collected from urban areas skews the entire data set.
Interestingly, if you go to the IPCC web-site for data, they do not provide temperature data, but they do provide a socio-economic base-line data.
Well let's just put it this way. If "acting" ever means carbon taxes and redistributing wealth from my country to the third world in any way, shape, or form, then forget it, acting is out. The planet can just end now and we'll start over again from the bacterial or extremophile state.
Maybe the next iteration of humanity will contain less miserable vicious evil collectivists ready to thieve and steal from some people for the unearned and undeserved benefit of other people. If not, they can go too.
So, "stealing" your tax dollars is wrong...but people dying because they can't afford air conditioning, or lack the skills to immigrate into other nations is fine? Those people won't have deserved to have their countries messed up either. That's not being fair. That's just greed. The wealthy nations, with the exceptions of people on the coasts, aren't going to be hurt by global warming as much as many of the broke nations whose citizens can't afford air conditioning...who might merely die. Also, those poorer nations are causing much less of the problem than we and other industrialized nations are.
The middle East and North Africa might be screwed, by the way, so all those Muslims are going to have to go somewhere...such as, perhaps, a place with lots and lots of room, such as the United States.
The ensemble results of CMIP5 climate models that applied the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios have been used to investigate climate change and temperature extremes in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Uncertainty evaluation of climate projections indicates good model agreement for temperature but much less for precipitation. Results imply that climate warming in the MENA is strongest in summer while elsewhere it is typically stronger in winter. The summertime warming extends the thermal low at the surface from South Asia across the Middle East over North Africa, as the hot desert climate intensifies and becomes more extreme. Observations and model calculations of the recent past consistently show increasing heat extremes, which are projected to accelerate in future. The number of warm days and nights may increase sharply. On average in the MENA, the maximum temperature during the hottest days in the recent past was about 43 °C, which could increase to about 46 °C by the middle of the century and reach almost 50 °C by the end of the century, the latter according to the RCP8.5 (business-as-usual) scenario. This will have important consequences for human health and society. https://link.springer.com/article/10...584-016-1665-6
I want to steal your tax dollars, by the way...lol. I don't care if you think it's theft or not. Actually, I prefer that people think of it as theft. I want it written as a new law that it's perfectly legal to "steal" people's tax dollars to combat climate change. I want it written just like that, lol.
We're going to have food shortages in areas too. Those poorer nations aren't going to be able to survive that as well as the wealthier ones. We're looking at lots of starvation...unless we can develop some really impressive GMO's quickly. Yeah, some nations will be better off (like Russia) but those sorts of benefits won't be evenly distributed. Some people will have a surplus of food from climate change, and other people will have squat, and the resources from the people with surpluses aren't going to instantly transfer to the people with squat, which means starvation.
So let's come up with a rational plan that does not involve the theft of wealth from one people, for the unearned and underserved benefit of other people.
If we postulate that destructive climate change exists, a way must be found to address it without redistribution or coercion or compulsion. Let's find a free market way to deal with it. Since we see many companies voluntarily taking various measures now to combat what they view as climate change, there is a way to accomplish it through rational persuasion.
If we are worth saving, then that is the way we must be saved. If coercion and theft are the only means to address it, we are not worth saving, and the current version of humanity is over. Better sooner rather than later, so that humanity 2.0 can be put on the schedule for evolution in 200,000,000 years.
No...that's just your opinion. You don't get to make that decision for everyone.
You have no right to determine that us "stealing" your tax dollars is worse than our species; extinction, and that entire mentality makes no sense at all. You would have never made it throughout most of human history with such a mentality. About everyone who lived before the last century for the last 70,000 years would be scoffing at your mentality. Also, a carbon tax wouldn't necessarily be stealing. It'd be more like getting back interest on what has been stolen by the biggest carbon producers.
You see, throughout most of human history people would have understood the concept of either not surviving, or giving up some piece of one's goods to the group so that the group (which includes oneself) can survive. That's pretty much been the general practice for all of human history. There haven't really been any solo individualists until now, for better or worse.
Also...the only type of carbon tax I've heard of that might be seen as "wealth redistribution" would involve a kind of carbon tax that everyone pays into...which would harm low income people more than wealthier people, because the low income people would be spending a larger percentage of their income on gas, and then everyone gets back a roughly equal piece of the collected pot collected through the carbon tax...so it wouldn't necessarily so much be wealth redistribution as preventing low income families from being screwed into the ground by the carbon tax...although that depends on some things.
Last edited by Clintone; 07-17-2018 at 02:32 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
