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.
With all this volcanic activity going on all over the world did any of you think its earth's internal thermal nuclear reactor causing global warming instead of mankind?
Actually the volcanic activity going on today Is not causing heating. Most of the particles spewed from volcanoes cool the planet by shading incoming solar radiation. The cooling effect can last for months to years depending on the characteristics of the eruption.
In the Northeast, NYC to be exact, we had a "four summers in a row" streak of breaking 100°. 1953 was particularly hot; the only year we hit 100° in September. We did so in July as well. Two hurricanes, I think Donna and Hazel, broke the streak during August 1955. 1956, 1958 and 1960 were cool. 1957, 1959 were quite hot; I think 1957 actually broke 100°. I wouldn't remember; I was about four months old when that happened.
It's ironic that "conservation" and "conservatism" both have the same Latin root conservare "to keep, preserve, keep intact, guard". Conserving our atmosphere and our natural resources and the integrity of the planet that sustains us is now somehow a "liberal" idea. Weirdly, so called conservatives have also now become haters of science and intellectualism. Funny what populism and propaganda can do to the human mind.
That's because scientifically illiterate conservatives have morphed a purely scientific argument (that they do not understand) into an economic, or political, argument (which they think they understand, and clearly do not, because it is rooted in a false narrative.)
Their sources for their skepticism? People like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and various Republicans in Congress, all bought and paid for by the energy lobby.
That's because scientifically illiterate conservatives have morphed a purely scientific argument (that they do not understand) into an economic, or political, argument (which they think they understand, and clearly do not, because it is rooted in a false narrative.)
Their sources for their skepticism? People like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and various Republicans in Congress, all bought and paid for by the energy lobby.
As opposed to lockstepped carbon tax scientists who suck off the public teet competing for welfare grant money at leftist universities and need Armageddon on the horizon forever to keep the welfare checks rolling in. Yeah, lets go that route.
Publish or perish, as they say so cynically and smugly.
There will also be fabulous wealth generated as a result of all the business and military activity. Don't sell AGW short, there are tremendous possible upsides.
Indeed. The weapons, irrigation, and air conditioning industries should do quite well, even as the overall economy shrinks due to massive costs.
Oh there will be plenty of redistribution, whether you like it or not. Taxes will go up massively to relocate entire cities inland, feed the massive numbers of refugees from tropical zones, beef up the military to deal with the inevitable geopolitical crises, install huge new irrigation projects to prevent the Midwest from turning into a desert, etc.
You’re going to pay for adaptation to global warming, and it won’t be cheap.
An increase in taxes is totally unnecessary, but then taxation is the typical Liberal knee-jerk reaction to every problem.
Only two things need to be done, and neither requires increasing taxes:
1] end federal subsidies for flooding disasters.
This does not mean a cessation of humanitarian relief. It simply means the federal government will neither pay for, nor reimburse cities, counties and States for the cost of clean-up, nor will the federal government buy properties nor will the federal government pay or reimburse property owners for damage to their properties caused by flooding.
2] Rescind all federal and State laws capping the cost of flood insurance.
That means property owners will now pay Free Market actuarial rates for the cost of flood insurance, instead of the Socialist Command Market rate. If property owners cannot afford the Free Market rate for a flood rider on their insurance, they have three choices:
1) sell the property;
2) abandon the property and take a foreclosure on their credit report;
3) refinance the mortgage on the property, because the second the mortgage lender receives notification that the property owner has cancelled/dropped the flood rider, the mortgage lender is going to purchase a flood rider and tack it onto the mortgage.
Those two actions will cause mortgage lenders to re-evaluate their lending practices. Mortgage lenders will either deem certain properties as high-risk and refuse to lend money, or they will charge a much higher interest rate.
Either way, it will curtail or bring to a halt current and future development of flood-risk areas.
Again, current commercial and private property owners can sell their property, and if they can't, they can abandon it, and if they're unwilling to do that, they can live there until the mortgage is paid off, then move inland and perhaps use the property as rental property for as long as possible (and they'll derive income from that).
The change from a tropical zone to a temperate zone is a non-event. It doesn't require the relocation of people, since Billions of people already live in temperate zones, so there won't be any refugees.
In spite of what you claim, there won't be a geo-political crisis.
So-called "climate change" has no bearing or effect on current US Geo-Political Strategy. The US still needs control of Iran, so that it has air, highway and rail access to the five Central Asian States.
This shows a graph of temperatures in the U.S. rising.
And it includes Urban Heat Islands, which are statistical outliers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
3. Climate models have been pretty accurate, when it comes to predicting the future, from what I understand.
Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade.
There's a 133% difference between 0.15°C and 0.35°C.
Obviously, the IPCC over-stated the effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
4. I don't think anybody can think of a good reason why global warming is happening, if not for C02. I haven't heard of any other explanations, at least.
Scientists don't even understand why Inter-Glacial Periods occur. The fact that some Inter-Glacial Periods coincide with the Milankovitch Cycle is not proof the Cycle causes Inter-Glacial Periods.
Seven of the eight prior documented Inter-Glacial Periods were warmer-than-present.
The reason the seventh wasn't warmer-than-present is because it was a very short Inter-Glacial Period, and scientists have no clue why it was cut short.
Initiation and long-term instability of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet
Geological records from the Sabrina Coast shelf indicate that, in addition to ocean temperature, atmospheric temperature and surface-derived meltwater influenced East Antarctic ice mass balance under warmer-than-present climate conditions. Our results imply a dynamic EAIS response with continued anthropogenic warming and suggest that the EAIS contribution to future global sea-level projections may be under-estimated.
Again, by their own admission, past Inter-Glacial Periods were warmer-than-present, and that study covers dozens and dozens of past Inter-Glacial Periods.
Why were temperatures in past Inter-Glacial Periods warmer-than-present?
Scientists have no explanation, and in fact, choose to ignore it.
The last Inter-Glacial Period was 10.4°F warmer-than-present. That's 5.7°C warmer-than-present.
5.7°C is 16 times greater than 0.35°C, and it's perfectly reasonable, even likely, that this Inter-Glacial Period will be 5.7°C warmer-than-present. The Inter-Glacial Period prior to the last was 7.8°F warmer-than-present, or 4.3°C, which is still 12 times greater than 0.35°C.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
The whole globe is warming, so it can't really be just Earth somehow rebounding from an ice age. Places can shift energy back and forth like that, but not if the whole globe is warming like it's been doing for a few decades.
The globe has been warming for the last 12,000 years.
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.
