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.
Correct, climate is much harder to predict and model, and they can't even get weather right. The assertion that climate and weather are different is a lie and an excuse. You need to make them separate to con people into believing you can be bad at one, but very good at the other.
It's a hack, a con, a hustle, it's fakery, it's fake news.
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
Leftists/liberals want America to fund a fight against mother nature which will bankrupt us, thus cause us to be part of a socialist/communist globalist government.
It is all for the good of the many, don't you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
I don't place great faith in climate science. At least not yet, because well, if they can't accurately predict the weather a 3 days in advance or even 24 hours in advance, I have to question their ability to predict weather 50 years in advance. LOL joking
In my almost 56 years we have been threatened that another ice age was coming. (the 70's).
Gore and company predicted melting ice caps and the rise of the ocean by 3 feet and more.
Part of my inability to take climate change seriously are messengers of choice. Al Gore and Hollywood whack jobs.
All that said I still try to live as green as possible. I like clean air, clean water and hate trash blowing around.
I would love to see renewable energy get the funding that we sank into the F-35, the Ford Class aircraft carrier, foreign aid to the ME,Nancy Pelosi's face lifts, and Hillary Clinton's election campaign.
I would love to see a 10 cent tax on every gallon of fuel sold to fund alternative, clean, energy research. Too much? Ok 5 cents a gallon.
Clean air and Clean water is a win for everyone.
Stop trying to sell it as a guilt trip, or a civic duty. The left has tried to guilt the nation on every topic imaginable and the nation is growing immune to guilt. Sell it for it's advantages.
Well, I don't try to live as green as possible. I'm a lazy piece of garbage, in many ways. Do whatever you want. I don't care. I just want people to agree that global warming is caused by human beings. Once we all agree that's happening, then we can decide what to do about it without distractions.
When I talk about the risks of global warming, I'm not trying to make anyone feel guilt. Everybody go have fun driving huge cars. I don't care. I look at it like, I perceive myself as vastly more important than everybody else, and I wouldn't expect other people to see things differently, and if they do, they're going above and beyond. When I talk about the risks, I just people to realize the risks.
That's why the risks I've been emphasizing are not things like Earth becoming Venus, but rather more seemingly inevitably stuff, like coastal flooding and nations experiencing starvation and massive emigration because of change...and most importantly, the general unpredictability of the future. That unpredictability, which from what I understand would generally happen after about 6 degrees or so, is what people are most concerned about. The models say Earth is going to increase in temperature 2.5 - 4.5 degrees celsius from post industrial levels by 2100, or up to 6 degrees if Earth is particularly vulnerable. After that, people start talking about unknowns, so far as I've read.
We could adapt to flooded coasts, but the problem I'm concerned about are problems over the next few centuries, because I don't know why Earth's temperature wouldn't keep rising, and rising, and rising, forever, if we don't do anything about curbing fossil fuel use.
The best argument I can think of for not trying to combat climate change is that we might invent fusion soon, in a manner that produces more energy than it takes in...but that's iffy.
At some point, if things continue how they're going forever, we're going to need to do something to not just reduce carbon output, but lower the Earth's temperature. Ideas for that are things like building a giant mirror in space or fertilizing the oceans with iron to trigger plankton blooms to absorb more C02. The space mirror would no doubt be quite expensive. The fertilizing the oceans with iron could have some unexpected side effects, and both of those options requite a globalist mentality with all nations working together and agreeing.
And most importantly, the slower temperature increases the easier it will be to adapt to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
Yeah that is the guilt trip pitch sales technique they like to use and it is failing. Guilt and fear mongering. Both sides use it so much that the nation is becoming immune to guilt.
What they should be selling are the advantages of green energy and renewable fuels.
We spent 1 trillion dollars to develop the turd known as the F-35.
Billions wasted on the literal combat ships and the Ford class carrier. (I would have bought attack subs with that money, lots of them). If we had to by a weapons system.
We could have invested it instead on research, or other things like a good health care alternative to the ACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Correct, climate is much harder to predict and model, and they can't even get weather right. The assertion that climate and weather are different is a lie and an excuse. You need to make them separate to con people into believing you can be bad at one, but very good at the other.
It's a hack, a con, a hustle, it's fakery, it's fake news.
There are two major questions in climate modeling - can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? To answer the first question, here is a summary of the IPCC model results of surface temperature from the 1800s - both with and without man-made forcings. All the models are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Nobody has created a general circulation model that can explain climate's behavior over the past century without CO2 warming. https://www.skepticalscience.com/cli...termediate.htm
Weather and climate are different things. Weather is how things behave on a day to day basis. Climate refers to the long run, and weather averaged over time. In a general sense, we can tell that Earth keeps getting warmer. People don't know specifically what results will happen from that, but it can be seen that Earth will keep getting warmer. I've read that the thought is that it'll get from 2.5-6 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels by the year 2100.
It's far easier to understand the average weather than day to day events.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
I don't place great faith in climate science. At least not yet, because well, if they can't accurately predict the weather a 3 days in advance or even 24 hours in advance, I have to question their ability to predict weather 50 years in advance. LOL joking
In my almost 56 years we have been threatened that another ice age was coming. (the 70's).
Gore and company predicted melting ice caps and the rise of the ocean by 3 feet and more.
Part of my inability to take climate change seriously are messengers of choice. Al Gore and Hollywood whack jobs.
All that said I still try to live as green as possible. I like clean air, clean water and hate trash blowing around.
I would love to see renewable energy get the funding that we sank into the F-35, the Ford Class aircraft carrier, foreign aid to the ME,Nancy Pelosi's face lifts, and Hillary Clinton's election campaign.
I would love to see a 10 cent tax on every gallon of fuel sold to fund alternative, clean, energy research. Too much? Ok 5 cents a gallon.
Clean air and Clean water is a win for everyone.
Stop trying to sell it as a guilt trip, or a civic duty. The left has tried to guilt the nation on every topic imaginable and the nation is growing immune to guilt. Sell it for it's advantages.
Also:
In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would exert a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember. https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice...s-in-1970s.htm
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
Shhhhh.... You'll destroy their narrative if people see the truth.
Shhhhh.... You'll destroy their narrative if people see the truth.
Oh, come on. I just posted this five minutes ago:
The argument that we're simply "coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)" makes one of two assumptions:
The planet oscillates around some natural equilibrium temperature such that after it cools, it must warm to return to this temperature, and vice-versa.
Whatever caused the LIA cooling has reversed phase and is now causing global warming.
The first assumption demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding what causes planetary temperature changes. The second does not hold up under scrutiny of the empirical data.
Climate Change Causes
A long-term increase in the Earth's average temperature is caused by a change in the planetary energy balance (incoming vs. outgoing energy), also known as a 'radiative forcing.' If the amounts of incoming and outgoing energy are equal, the planet is in equilibrium and its temperature will not increase on average.
Note that over short periods of time, energy can be exchanged between the Earth's oceans and surface air through natural cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which can result in a short-term warming of the surface oceans and air at the expense of a cooling of the deeper oceans, or vice-versa. However, these cycles oscillate between positive and negative states, which over the long-term cancel each other out and do not cause significant temperature trends. These oscillations neither create nor retain heat; they simply move it around and thus physically cannot cause global warming or cooling. Further, if these cycles were causing the surface to warm, they would be causing the oceans to cool, which is the opposite of what we observe.
There are many different factors which can cause a planetary energy imbalance. Some of the most common examples are changes in solar activity, atmospheric greenhouse gases, volcanic activity, the Earth's overall reflectivity, and variations in the Earth's orbit around the Sun (also known as 'Milankovitch cycles'). However, the key point is that the planet will not warm or cool over the long-term unless there is a radiative forcing causing a planetary energy imbalance. Thus the planet will not warm simply because it had previously cooled, and the notion that the planet is just "recovering" from the LIA makes no physical sense.
Little Ice Age Causes
Therefore, the only way the current warming could be because "we're coming out of the LIA" would be if whatever caused the energy imbalance resulting in the LIA cooling had since changed state to cause a positive radiative forcing, thus resulting in the global warming we've observed over the past century. Climate scientists have proposed numerous factors which likely contributed to the global cooling of the LIA. https://www.skepticalscience.com/com...e-advanced.htm
Leftists/liberals want America to fund a fight against mother nature which will bankrupt us, thus cause us to be part of a socialist/communist globalist government.
It is all for the good of the many, don't you know.
Yeah that is the guilt trip pitch sales technique they like to use and it is failing. Guilt and fear mongering. Both sides use it so much that the nation is becoming immune to guilt.
Granted, the list of entertainers who fueled the guilt fest a/k/a the Paris Climate conclave included:
Chris Pine
Jon Bon Jovi
Lance Bass
Ed Begley, Jr
Vance Joy
Peter Gabriel
There are musical performances to help focus the politicians as:
Damian Kulash
Duran Duran
Elton John
Fall Out Boy
Florence & The Machine
Hozier
Mumford And Sons
Walk The Moon
These dedicated actors, singers, musical groups and politicians no doubt felt very good about themselves. They are "saving the earth" and having a very good time in the process. The very real problem with these gatherings is that they will come up with an agreement that will accomplish nothing, and be very costly to ordinary, hard-working people. Why is this predictable? Politicians want money. Even if it's for other, Third World politicians that would be the major beneficiary of the Paris Accord-created Climate Adjustment Fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
What they should be selling are the advantages of green energy and renewable fuels.
If any. It takes energy, not necessarily green, to grown grain, and then to convert it to shove into the gas tank.
Solar and wind power have been trumpeted as a cure-all for the environment. After all they emit no CO2, the bogeyman for "global warming" or "climate change." Even better yet, they require subsidies and subsidies expand the role of government. Above all, they feel good. A recent National Review article, A Clean Energy’s Dirty Little Secret, reviews disposal problems with regard to 25 year old panels, their useful life. Before people get on their high horse and point out that National Review is a conservative publication, can someone point to factual errors in the story. The article points out that "(f)ederal and state governments have been slow to enact disposal and recycling policies, undoubtedly fearful of raising any red flags about the environmental threat posed by a purported climate-change panacea." Like used computers and televisions "(s)olar panels are considered a form of toxic, hazardous electronic or “e-waste....”
Other articles have explored wind power's highly blemished environmental record. In an article entitled Wind Forum Explores Concerns. It seems many Vermonters have had not only their scenery, but right to live in reasonable quiet, utterly wrecked.A neighbor of one such project, quoted in the article stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Fairneny, Wind Project Neighbor
Now it's like living near the airport. The sound does change.... My wife's ears ring whenever she's at home. She has tinnitus never had ear problems and we've been traveling up and down this mountain for 29 years. Never any issues with going up and down the mountain and we don't know what we're going to do yet.
Many people feel the need to "do something" and "start somewhere." They are very impressed with pronouncements from big, glitzy forums such as those held in Paris where the Climate Accords were "negotiated" and announced. There was to be sure lots of top officials and entertainment such as Elton John. But when the shouting is done, has anything been accomplished, other than to obtain more taxpayer money and move around to other, less powerful locales the environmental problems?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Correct, climate is much harder to predict and model, and they can't even get weather right. The assertion that climate and weather are different is a lie and an excuse. You need to make them separate to con people into believing you can be bad at one, but very good at the other.
It's a hack, a con, a hustle, it's fakery, it's fake news.
The reason they do that is to rebut people that cite actual weather statistics to the effect that temperatures have been relatively static. Not that they would stay that way. See:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
The Earth has warmed since the end of the "little ice age" which lasted from about 1350 to 1850, a time during which glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river. So, we were due for an upturn and we have gotten it.
Prior to that, we had the medieval warming period, which lasted from 800 to about 1300. This was when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green.
So as you can see, the warming we have experienced since the end of the little ice-age is not unusual or unexpected at all.
Even now the Delaware River, as does the Hudson, frequently has icing. Remember when Sullenberger piloted his plane to a safe Hudson River landing in January 2009? And we had icing in January 2018, and going back, in my memory to January 1977. Another thing about the Delaware River crossing by Washington; that storm was actually a mixture of rain, snow and sleet and the temperatures were in the 50's within a week.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
Shh. Facts terrify the AGW religion.
So true. I couldn't rep Spartacus but I repped this post.
Correct, climate is much harder to predict and model, and they can't even get weather right. The assertion that climate and weather are different is a lie and an excuse. You need to make them separate to con people into believing you can be bad at one, but very good at the other.
It's a hack, a con, a hustle, it's fakery, it's fake news.
Climate is longer term, weather is shorter term - often said that climate is what to expect, weather is what you get.
Even if you don't accept that humanity is warming the planet, you should still aim to use the correct word for any situation.
As Judge Judy says, " if things don't make sense, they are probably not true." Temperatures have supposedly risen 1.5 to 2 degrees since 1880. They say they are using satellite measurements, but the first ones were not launched until the 1950s. I cannot imagine that Africa, Asia etc. kept very accurate temperature logs in the 1800s. I know they say it is weather, but here in the central part of the US, our heat records are all from 1953-54. Before that 1933. The worst droughts we had were the 1930s. The worst floods, early 1950s and 1993. Even some of the climate scientists say that the computer models have not been accurate.
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.
