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.
Not only that, but the total difference in weather patterns today, compared with weather of the past!
These past few summers, its been very noticeable to me that 'summer weather' is MUCH different versus when I was 10-12 yrs old...todays summer ( in the midwest), we get FAR longer weather patterns and the humidity is brutal almost every single day!
I remember one weekend in Sept, the forecast was claiming the weather was going to be great, lower temps than we had been having, so we planned an outing that sunday, turns out, while the temperatures were moderate (low 70s), what they failed to mention was that the dew point was also in the mid 70s!!!! Needless to say, it was miserable being outside, hard to breath, everything felt sticky and nasty.
One more thing about humidity and dew points, in years past (when I was a kid), we would get humid days fairly often in the summer...but it was NOT EVERY SINGLE DAY...for 14-20 days at a time!!
Just go out to Nevada and witness the growth of tropical rainforests from all the humidity. What? Are you thinking that such weather events are localized? What you witness in your lifetime can no way be an accurate representation of overall climate change.
By the time coastal cities are being flooded (well, in the first place we probably won't be around) someone will have likely solved the time travel problem and they can send someone back to a time before human existence, and confirm what many people already know. That is, weather and climate has been changing in every direction without help from humans. By the way, there are means by which scientists can pretty much say that now, by looking at geological evidence.
Note how they change from "man-caused climate change" to merely "climate change", as though the latter is what people are talking about.
An easy way to duck away from the real argument (supposed "man-caused climate change"), which they cannot win.
Has there been any indication, from all the probes we have sent, that Mars has never experienced climate change? Man has never been there, so according to some on here they should have the same climate that was around a million years ago.
Teaching about ecology and enviromentalism is all well and good. But such college classes will be biased in favor of a pro-global warming agenda. Because nearly all colleges, with the exception of outliers like Texas A&M, are firmly on one side of the political spectrum. A solution may exist, but it's very elusive.
Confusing there, they're, and their is one thing. But insisting that cold is warm is just insane.
Not to mention if you are a professor hired to teach ecology and environmentalism, you have vested interest in making sure there is a problem with solutions, whether valid or not, in order to make your future earnings potential intact.
"..97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
So virtually everyone who devotes their lives to this actual study disagrees with you...
The polar ice caps are receding, loss of snow caps cannot be denied, the rise in greenhouse gases has skyrocketed in the past few decades...
But hey...YOU don't think its a problem....experts, shmexperts what do they know anyway.....
If they are "actively publishing", that means they are getting paid to publish. Who is paying them to do so, and if they didn't say there was a problem, would they continue to get paid?
We can't do anything to stop it. I agree 100%. The planet will evolve and eventually die. That is the inevitable outcome of the existence of planets.
However, we CAN slow down the change, by contributing to it less than we contribute to it now. Does that mean we need to live in caves again? Absolutely not. It means - not polluting AS much. Not burning fuel AS much. Shifting to renewable fuel sources instead of fossil fuel sources. Growing organics more, recycling more, finding new resources for textiles (did you know you can make clothes with hemp, and sheets with bamboo, and curtains with banana fiber?) instead of robbing the earth's surface of nutrients and then adding artificial nutrients to make up for what we stripped...
Lots of things we can do, to help slow down the process. It's a win-win for the economy too since it will create more jobs.
I am undecided whether or not I feel that humans actually speed up the process of climate change, but I do know humans are destroying the planet. Though it may not sound it, I feel that the environment should be the worlds #1 priority. The issue with this is that it requires change, and people don't like change.
There is exactly ZERO evidence in support of your statement. You only have some correlative evidence that is inconsistent: positive correlation of co2 with temp rise from 1985-2005, but negative correlation for 1950-1985. While co2 levels have risen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, they were already rising for a century prior to that.
Analysis of ice cores show co2 changes lag behind temp change by 800 yrs, ie- rising co2 is a result of warming, not a cause.
Einstein famously said about his theory: "No preponderance of experimental evidence can prove me right, but even one experiment could prove me wrong." A theory has to explain all the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunbiz1
Actually we are in an inter-glacial period,....
And I know plenty of cardiac surgeons who call CABG "open heart surgery." They should know better. The coronaries are on the outside of the heart and the heart is not opened to bypass them.... As long as there are glaciers, we can't be "between glaciations."....I bring the point up to illustrate the fact that the warming we've seen for the past 12,000 yrs is to be expected as part of the natural warming/cooling cycles. We didn't need fossil fuels to explain the previous cycles. We don't need them now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1insider
I would like to know who these fanatics are that are looking to profit from this extortion of governments and how they plan to do it.
Start with Solyndra, Musk/Tesla, power companies who add alt power generation capital expenses to increase their profits guaranteed as a percentage of expenses, etc etc...Do we need to bring up the politicians seeking votes by adhering to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghaati
.. It's (alt energy) a win-win for the economy too since it will create more jobs.
This is the problem. There is a segment of this country that denies man-made climate change despite all the evidence to the contrary. Its amazing what some people believe without evidence and what some people won't believe even with overwhelming evidence. What we are down too is a segment of people first decide what they want to believe and than only consider evidence that supports their position.
You might actually want to read the paper from NASA that you are a doing a bad job attempting to ridicule.
It is a compelling piece in favor of doing something about man-made climate change. Take a look at the graph showing the increase in global temperatures for more than one hundred years. Also, look at the number of scientific groups and organizations that believe man-made climate change is real. Don't keep putting your head in the sand.
I am not ridiculing the NASA paper, I only said they referenced the same flawed studies. I am ridiculing the 97% stat that is used, it is amazing what people will believe if made to look like a scientific study (even if done by a cartoonist). You are so defensive of your position that you can't even accept that the stat is provably wrong. You are guilty of accepting the evidence as overwhelming when it is far more open to interpretation. I have an open mind, I am not convinced one way or another yet. Denying that the science is NOT settled yet, is the issue; there are many other scientists who look at the data and get different results.
The NASA paper is interesting but their use of the flawed 97% studies puts the whole paper in doubt. But this is not ALL of NASA, this is one segment of their scientists. You are ignoring even some of their own scientists have doubts - I gave you the information in my previous post. There are NASA Scientists, Nobel Prize winners, Green Peace activists and many other experts that said the science is flawed in the "proofs" of global warning.
I am not the expert (although I worked in a related field) and I am guessing, neither are you. Accept the fact that this science is not as settled yet as most think.
"..97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
So virtually everyone who devotes their lives to this actual study disagrees with you...
The polar ice caps are receding, loss of snow caps cannot be denied, the rise in greenhouse gases has skyrocketed in the past few decades...
But hey...YOU don't think its a problem....experts, shmexperts what do they know anyway.....
At the end of the day, it won't matter at all what the experts think or what the OP thinks. Physics will win out every single time. And this time human beings are going to lose as climate change gradually erodes modern civilization over the next 50-100 years. In a way it's more about the law of natural selection if you drill down to the root cause, human intelligence. It evolved to allow humans to expand their ability to survive in many different environments and to grow our population nearly unchecked. But at the end of the day that intelligence will be the primary factor in the self destruction of the species. Tens of thousands of species have come and gone in the history of the planet, why do humans believe they will somehow be any different?
At the end of the day, it won't matter at all what the experts think or what the OP thinks. Physics will win out every single time. And this time human beings are going to lose as climate change gradually erodes modern civilization over the next 50-100 years. In a way it's more about the law of natural selection if you drill down to the root cause, human intelligence. It evolved to allow humans to expand their ability to survive in many different environments and to grow our population nearly unchecked. But at the end of the day that intelligence will be the primary factor in the self destruction of the species. Tens of thousands of species have come and gone in the history of the planet, why do humans believe they will somehow be any different?
Because, supposedly we are the only species with intelligence. But I fear there are too many people who don't have that intelligence and just depend on hearing things from others. So what they think is based on who they decided to believe on any given issue.
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.
