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.
The billion dollar models the so called climate experts produced is no better than the farmers almanac or a community organizer throwing darts at a board to forecast weather.
If things were as serious as they claim even China, Russia and India would go all green and at least no more coal powered plants but they aren’t and won’t. Just taking advantage of the religion to gain on so called first world as we force people to buy more expensive energy and freeze Germans this winter. Foolishness.
I will start believing in human's effecting the earth's climate when:
1) All yachts are confiscated and recycled, they have an outrageous carbon footprint.
2) All Private & Corporate aircrafts (Lears Jets, Gulf Streams, etc) are confiscated and recycled, they have an outrageous carbon footprint.
3) All Private property within 1 mile of a sea / ocean coastline is confiscated by the government and all the RICH ELITE are required to move at least one mile inland ......OBVIOUSLY to protect the naive owners from the rising sea levels.
4) Equitable / Equal distribution of energy. Why should rich elites get as much energy as they want to heat and cool multiple mansions while the rest of us are being warned of rationing of energy?
Notice my couple of examples highlight the hypocrisy of the ELITE LEFTIST that want to control the rest of us.
We are either in a crisis or we are not.
Would like to hear from others on what they see as blatant hypocrisy.
Green New Deal AOC supporting and voting for 100 Billion dollars of YOUR tax dollars to Ukraine. The only green in this deal is millions / billions into the pockets of corrupt politicians and democrat donors.
I will start believing in human's effecting the earth's climate when:
1) All yachts are confiscated and recycled, they have an outrageous carbon footprint.
2) All Private & Corporate aircrafts (Lears Jets, Gulf Streams, etc) are confiscated and recycled, they have an outrageous carbon footprint.
3) All Private property within 1 mile of a sea / ocean coastline is confiscated by the government and all the RICH ELITE are required to move at least one mile inland ......OBVIOUSLY to protect the naive owners from the rising sea levels.
4) Equitable / Equal distribution of energy. Why should rich elites get as much energy as they want to heat and cool multiple mansions while the rest of us are being warned of rationing of energy?
Notice my couple of examples highlight the hypocrisy of the ELITE LEFTIST that want to control the rest of us.
We are either in a crisis or we are not.
Would like to hear from others on what they see as blatant hypocrisy.
Only just now saw this thread. Some thoughts...
In regard to points 1 through 3, the US government does not have a history of confiscating valuable property from law abiding citizens. Any government which attempted to vacuum up yachts and Lear Jets would be a communist government. Any politician attempting to do such things here in the US would be voted out , and they'd have to go into some sort of government protection program so as not to be hunted down by an enraged mob.
As for point 4, those who are wealthy have always been able to buy whatever they want. If they wanted more energy, they'd just buy it on the black market if that's what it came down to. You seem to have a great deal of resentment toward the wealthy - especially wealthy liberals.
There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of the fence. However, hypocrisy is not scientific proof for or against climate change. Why not just state that you don't believe in global warming and give yacht owners a break?
In regard to points 1 through 3, the US government does not have a history of confiscating valuable property from law abiding citizens. Any government which attempted to vacuum up yachts and Lear Jets would be a communist government. Any politician attempting to do such things here in the US would be voted out , and they'd have to go into some sort of government protection program so as not to be hunted down by an enraged mob.
As for point 4, those who are wealthy have always been able to buy whatever they want. If they wanted more energy, they'd just buy it on the black market if that's what it came down to. You seem to have a great deal of resentment toward the wealthy - especially wealthy liberals.
There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides of the fence. However, hypocrisy is not scientific proof for or against climate change. Why not just state that you don't believe in global warming and give yacht owners a break?
I think the yachts have extremely sophisticated communications devices on board and that's what they are after (not the boat).
I don't have a yacht, I'm not wealthy at all- and I definitely believe that human activity has an effect on the environment and the climate, to some degree or another. Because how could it not? Everything has an effect on everything else. We don't exist in a vacuum, and when we choose to dig up fossil fuels and burn them to produce energy for our lifestyles, the byproduct is carbon dioxide. When that is released into the atmosphere, it contributes to a greenhouse effect. Additional heat is trapped that would have otherwise escaped. That additional heat very slightly warms the overall surface of the planet more than it otherwise would have been. And any very slight changes in overall global surface and atmospheric warmth, can compound into significant related effects.
Was the climate slowly changing anyway, before post-industrial human activity? Yes, of course. Is our activity changing the climate? Yes, of course.
Whether that's good or bad, i.e. worth it or not for what all we get out of that burned fuel, is up to interpretation, but the simple fact of it shouldn't be so controversial. It's just simple facts, and we can do with it what we want.
In my opinion, we should move society more towards nuclear-based energy. (Fission, which is the best tech we have for now.) And of course any and all renewable energy, but I'm not sure that that would be enough energy for our overall needs.
Clinching on and refusing to let go of fossil fuels at this point (in the name of jobs, which is a terrible excuse since jobs could be created for any type of energy), I think is very shortsighted.
That's the new world order liberal elitist in me talking. And I would have gotten away with it, too...
... I definitely believe that human activity has an effect on the environment and the climate, to some degree or another. Because how could it not? Everything has an effect on everything else. We don't exist in a vacuum, and when we choose to dig up fossil fuels and burn them to produce energy for our lifestyles, the byproduct is carbon dioxide. When that is released into the atmosphere, it contributes to a greenhouse effect....
.
You are right in the sense of The Butterfly Effect in chaotic systems like the weather...But you have to understand that the GH Effect is a THEORY that has never been demonstrated in experiments.
But we don't have to argue about whether or not the theory is correct. We only have to determine how much it actually affects the weather IF it's correct....and that appears to be a minimal effect at this point. Cf- Extinction of Absorption and the Doubling Period phenomenon of exponential functions.....
The value of a theory is found in its accuracy in predicting future events/results. This theory has failed miserably in that respect, but that may be due to the unwise & ill informed (let's not go so far as to say "lies" but we could) values placed on it's effect by those who run the computer programs. https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/...ate-model.html
If they would tone down their estimates to a more realistic value for the contribution of co2, they'd be more accurate, but also lose the advantage of scare tactics in public acceptance of energy policy.
Note-- In the reference cited above, the third figure on the page shows the actual temperatures by the black line. One of the computer programs (the one shown as turquoise) is remarkably close to reality-- but that one won't scare anybody into giving up fossil fuel.
You are right in the sense of The Butterfly Effect in chaotic systems like the weather...But you have to understand that the GH Effect is a THEORY that has never been demonstrated in experiments.
Did you freeze to death last night? No? Ok, then, you just did an overnight experiment that proves that the greenhouse effect is a thing. Our atmosphere-less moon is the same distance from the sun as we are, and it's something like negative 200 degrees there, every night. Earth's atmosphere clearly is trapping in heat via greenhouse gases. Otherwise life wouldn't even be possible here.
I'm not referring to any "butterfly effect" or chaos theory. I'm definitely not trying to "scare people". I have no stake in the game. I just seek out the facts of the situation on this topic- I don't care who's right. I'm not in any energy-related industry. I'm just some dude, and I currently don't even own a car of any kind.
I'm referring to essential causality, and the most basic laws of physics. If we as intelligent, civilized animals (a relatively brand new phenomenon on this very old planet), use our brains and tools to do our thing and pump a ton of greenhouse gas into Earth's atmosphere every day for decades on end, it doesn't magically have no effect at all on the planet's climate or the mean global temperature measurements over time, because that would be completely absurd. The Earth is of course an inter-related ecosystem, existing in a delicate balance. As I said, literally everything has some effect on everything else, per the laws of physics. I'm not judging the actions we choose, but surely actions and choices also have consequences.
And I'm certainly willing to accept that there may have already been a warming trend over the long haul, unrelated to man's activities. Sure, that's probably very true. But, clearly we are heavily speeding that overall trend up, over recent decades and years. Clearly there's a general warming going on, however small.
Here I've lived in Seattle a little less than 3 years now, and just in that time, there's been a lot of "record hottest day", "record hottest month", etc. And other types of records, near-records, and lots of odd weather. Last week had record hottest days ever here, hitting 80 degrees, usually unheard of here in October. The hottest day ever in Seattle was last year, and I believe 3 of the 4 hottest days in Seattle history were all last year. The locals tell me they used to not need A/C in the summers here, and now it's become a near necessity. That day it hit 108 here last year, it was funny because I don't think I ever experienced 108 in Atlanta, or I can't recall it. Ironic, I lived over 36 years in the south, moved up to literally the furthest north city in the country, and already experienced my hottest temperature.
I'm not saying that extreme weather phenomenon (and micro-climate phenomena related especially here) is not a thing that would happen occasionally, even without man-caused warming. But I observe there's a clear overall trend that shows that a lot more of it is happening in recent years, than used to. The planet is not cooling, and it's not staying the exact same, of course. It's warming very slowly, but those very tiny temperature changes can have relatively large impacts. There's still plenty of cold days in winter, still plenty of snow and etc. But the glaciers here in Washington's Olympic mountains are melting, and will be gone in just a few decades. Clearly there is a warming going on that's more rapid than could just be explained by the natural warming cycle over thousands and thousands and thousands of years.
Natural gas isn't quite as bad as the others, so that's at least the preferable fossil fuel for right now, but I think long term we need to shift our culture and society towards a power grid that doesn't involve burning long dead organic stuff that we dug up, and there's only so much of anyway (regardless of how much there is down there, surely it's finite). And cars and stuff need to be electric and powered off said grid.
I don't know about you people, but I love this planet, and I love the human species and life in general. I want to see all these things thrive long into the future. I'm not an alarmist. I don't agree with alarmism per se. You can be a skeptic about climate trends, that's perfectly fine and allowed. And we can do nothing about the situation- doing nothing is at least a choice. But I don't think it's the best choice.
Did you freeze to death last night? No? Ok, then, you just did an overnight experiment that proves that the greenhouse effect is a thing.experienced.....
Sorry. I stopped reading the rest as soon as I read that--> It shows you don't know what the Greenhouse Gas Effect is....The GHGE has to do with the availability of polyatomic molecules to absorb "extra" energy at a specific resonant frequency due to their having a third degree of freedom (vibration) not possessed by mono- and di-atomic molecules which have only two degrees of freedom (translation & rotation) to pick up energy.
98% of the atmosphere consists of N2 & O2. ..co2 is only 0.0004% of the atmosphere. They all get warmed basically by direct conduction (ie- touching) the surface warmed directly by the Sun, then convecting (hot air rises) to mix with upper levels....Given that co2 only absorbs "extra" photons at a very limited portion of the EM spectrum, and that it's present in such low quantities, it's not even logical that the GHGE contributes very much to warming.
Many poorly educated "Warmists" like to point to Venus to "prove" their point claiming that Venus is 9x warmer than Earth and that Venus has a [co2] 9x higher than Earth...But they have apparently forgotten their lessons in hi school chemistry/physics class--
The Ideal Gas Law-- PV = nRT--> rearrange it to
T = PV/nR...if P goes up 9x (like on Venus) then T goes up 9x--- it has nothing to do with the type of gas.
I'm not referring to any "butterfly effect" or chaos theory. I'm definitely not trying to "scare people". I have no stake in the game. I just seek out the facts of the situation on this topic- I don't care who's right. I'm not in any energy-related industry. I'm just some dude, and I currently don't even own a car of any kind.
Sorry. I stopped reading the rest as soon as I read that-->
People are not thinking through whether the remedies are effectual. That's, by the way, where I stop reading.
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.
