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.
If global temps are actually cooling, just say they're getting warmer. Fudge the data. If storms occur as always, sensationalize them. Record snows melt, the run off and flooding are due to global warming. A tornado hits, its global warming. A hurricane hits a cold front and stalls and rains and rains, make it out to be a freak monster.
Make science a religious alter to dance around. You don't have to understand it, just use it as a weapon against those who question your findings.
Or look at the politics and see this for what it is. A scam to make obscenely rich people even richer at the expense of everyone else.
The solar minimum, which could last 20-40 years, is producing lower temperatures and "late" snowfalls in the west and Midwest with late May snow storms.
With the falling of temps and increased snowfall, will this dampen the enthusiasm for AGW? How will the AGW "stoke the flames" and keep enthusiasm up for the premise when the nation is faced with continued cold temps and record snowfalls?
Summer will save the day temporarily, where "record temps" can be sited for every day above 90 degrees, but eventually those pesky cold winters and snowfall will return.
Can AGW carry on in spite of lower temps?
IF the solar minimum causes lower temperatures, that in no way negates AGW. The temps may be colder, but not as cold as they would otherwise be without AGW.
From the article: “So, solar activity is very low, and it’s been going down for the last 25 to 30 years, so it’s been trending down by about 25 percent per decade,” said McIntosh. Yet the last 5 years have been the hottest on record https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...-nasa-reports/. Imagine how much warmer it would have been without the mitigating effects of lower solar activity. Once the solar activity begins rising again, logic would seem to dictate an even greater increase in temps than what climatologists now predict.
Although a solar minimum effect might "buy" us more time, it would be unfortunate if we use that as an excuse to ignore increases in CO2. Best case: we use this time to develop better renewable energy sources that can be implemented before the temps start rising even faster.
You might not know this but our climate has been changing for billions of years.
Did you know the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were nearly three times higher in the Jurrasic. At that time, plenty of bio diversity and lots of forests.
The odd thing is that those who promote AGW seem to ignore that fact- that CO2 has been 10X higher in the past before man and that we have had tropical conditions in both polar regions in the past.
What the AGW crowd is really concerned about is 9 ppm CO2.`That's it- 9 ppm. That is the manmade increase in CO2 that is causing all the concern.
You gotta chuckle at all the people who fancy themselves climate experts now a days.
IT'S Nature and it will change all by its self. A Maunder Minimum is coming in another decade which will chill the lefties right down to their tootsies. The last one put ice on the Mississippi River down in NOLA. Instead of worrying about GW - enjoy the ride while you can.
IF the solar minimum causes lower temperatures, that in no way negates AGW. The temps may be colder, but not as cold as they would otherwise be without AGW.
From the article: “So, solar activity is very low, and it’s been going down for the last 25 to 30 years, so it’s been trending down by about 25 percent per decade,” said McIntosh. Yet the last 5 years have been the hottest on record https://www.nationalgeographic.com/e...-nasa-reports/. Imagine how much warmer it would have been without the mitigating effects of lower solar activity. Once the solar activity begins rising again, logic would seem to dictate an even greater increase in temps than what climatologists now predict.
Although a solar minimum effect might "buy" us more time, it would be unfortunate if we use that as an excuse to ignore increases in CO2. Best case: we use this time to develop better renewable energy sources that can be implemented before the temps start rising even faster.
How does one parse the contribution from AGW vs reduced solar activity, the orbit of the earth, and the reduction in the earth's magnetic field?
That is the problem I have with AGW (and should most everyone who is scientifically honest). There are a number of factors that can affect climate and have done so for millions of years. However, in the last 30 years, we suddenly have ONE ANSWER for changes in temp or climate, and that is CO2. It is simply scientifically impossible for one to then parse and assign the contributions from each entity.
Again, the AGW crowd talks about CO2 of 420 ppm. However, the 280 ppm prior to the industrialization of man was just peachy. Of that 140 ppm increase only 9ppm is attributed to man.
Do you really, really believe that an increase of 9 ppm (that part of the increased 140 ppm of CO2) can or is doing anything at all?
This is simply the biggest hoax the world has ever seen.....we have the white shop coats who depend on research grants jumping in and "cooking the books" on the temp computer runs......then the big crooks of the UN see the power grab potential on a colossal scale and they can vacuum the pockets of the wealthy countries and dole it out to the "challenged" folks posing for PR shots with gaunt faces burned by a heat wave. Of course an enormous amount of cash is siphoned off by the corrupt at every step of the way.......you put a $100K in one end of the GW pipeline and at the other end you have a guy in pickup going out and planting ten trees......
Just like the barkers at a circus, sling enough excrement at the wall some of it will stick........
You might not know this but our climate has been changing for billions of years.
Did you know the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were nearly three times higher in the Jurrasic. At that time, plenty of bio diversity and lots of forests.
Yes, and the global temperature was quite a bit higher during the Jurassic, which supports the link between CO2 and temperature. Those high temps were great for dinosaurs - I don't know if humans will enjoy them so much.
Yes, and the global temperature was quite a bit higher during the Jurassic, which supports the link between CO2 and temperature. Those high temps were great for dinosaurs - I don't know if humans will enjoy them so much.
1. a higher global annual average... lets say 10'f over where we are today....would be about 69'f..ie the climate of Hawaii... (the average interglacial period was about 72-75'f)
2. warmer is also more tropical...better for growing, and less need for irrigation
3. people live and thrive in areas like Kuwait with temps reaching 140'f...and we are talking average annual global of 74ish degrees
4. colder (glacial) would not be good for humans at all
How does one parse the contribution from AGW vs reduced solar activity, the orbit of the earth, and the reduction in the earth's magnetic field?
That is the problem I have with AGW (and should most everyone who is scientifically honest). There are a number of factors that can affect climate and have done so for millions of years. However, in the last 30 years, we suddenly have ONE ANSWER for changes in temp or climate, and that is CO2. It is simply scientifically impossible for one to then parse and assign the contributions from each entity.
Again, the AGW crowd talks about CO2 of 420 ppm. However, the 280 ppm prior to the industrialization of man was just peachy. Of that 140 ppm increase only 9ppm is attributed to man.
Do you really, really believe that an increase of 9 ppm (that part of the increased 140 ppm of CO2) can or is doing anything at all?
I'll grant you that it is difficult to parse out relative contributions of various factors. Very likely CO2 is not the ONE ANSWER for changes in climate.
But I challenge (and have challenged before) your assertion about how much CO2 rise is attributable to humans. If you concede that CO2 has risen by 140 ppm over the past 50 years, but you think man is only responsible for 9 ppm, then where did the other 131 ppm come from? You've got to admit that's a pretty dramatic increase in such a short period of time. One would think the source would be fairly obvious.
Although the percentage of total CO2 in the atmosphere that derived from human sources may be small, the proportion of the increase in total CO2 may be much larger. I don't claim to be an expert in this, but here are a couple of articles you might find interesting:
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.
