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.
Really is that what you've concluded? OK whatever floats your boat goat.
It's clear that you don't possess the intellectual honesty to have a productive discussion about the lies, myths and disinformation people (including you), have posted about AGW.
..so you won't answer.....
Quote:
Did the UN/IPCC designate China as a "developing country" or not?
Did the UN/IPCC say "developing countries" could increase their CO2 emissions, or not?
Has all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 come from China and developing countries, or not?
Are you forgetting how long greenhouse gasses remain in the atmosphere?
Carbon dioxide’s lifetime cannot be represented with a single value because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves among different parts of the ocean–atmosphere–land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide is absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments.
The orchestrators of this agenda are not actually interested in interfering with the environment. This is all just a very thinly veiled power grab, with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) being the excuse in this instance for "emergency powers" to be invoked.
It is only about their obsession with seizing total control. The climate change business is just the theme of their gaslighting campaign for that purpose.
The funny thing is, these charlatans could make a birthday party sound like a holocaust.
The Smithsonian Magazine had a headline “CO2 Levels are as high as the we’re Three Million Years Ago”. The following text claimed that during that time, trees were growing at the South Pole. Oh no!!! Trees at the South Pole? What a tragedy. Of course, our 400 ppm CO2 is nothing compared to the Cretaceous Period (time of the dinosaurs) when CO2 was 1000 ppm.
Now let’s translate this ALARMING INFORMATION into a bit of common sense language without all the hyperbole and gloom and doom.
At some point in time, millions of years ago, Antarctica was not a barren, inhospitable continent of Ice, but was lush and full of flora and fauna, and perhaps human civilizations. This, apparently would be a disaster, according to the climate alarmists. But for rational people, what this means is, at some point the earth experienced an extreme glacial period, for which the North and South Poles, and the life once there, was destroyed, and what we see today remain frozen remnants. Such extreme glaciation would surely kill off a very significant portion of all life on earth, humans, fauna and flora, not just at the poles but a significant portion of the entire earth. By contrast, the opposite would see life teaming around the globe, even in places that are now very barren and inhospitable to life.
So, I can see why those who believe in overpopulation, who want to reduce said population would love to have another glacial period to kill off the useless eaters ( you and me), but for the rest of us, a warmer planet more favorable to life over greater areas of the planet would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
Without CO2, life could not exist on earth, and it is absolutely a fact that the higher the levels of CO2, the more abundant life is on earth. Plants thrive in high CO2 concentrations, which then produce oxygen that allows human and animal life to thrive. The abundant plant life provides food for the animals, who provide food for the humans. It’s a nice little arrangement....
Why would anyone not desire this? Particularly when the alternative means a planet wide extinction event as we plunge into another glaciation period?
Are you forgetting how long greenhouse gasses remain in the atmosphere?
Carbon dioxide’s lifetime cannot be represented with a single value because the gas is not destroyed over time, but instead moves among different parts of the ocean–atmosphere–land system. Some of the excess carbon dioxide is absorbed quickly (for example, by the ocean surface), but some will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years, due in part to the very slow process by which carbon is transferred to ocean sediments.
see...another one trying to deflect
What exactly does "increase" mean to you?
The USA has not "increased" it's CO2 emissions in 50 years....
....all of the "increase" has come from China and the developing world...which is the vast majority of countries
The whole point is to "reduce" emissions...not "increase" emissions
50 years ago CO2 levels were 325ppm....left up to the USA....it would still be 325ppm
"are you forgetting how long all the "increase" from China will remain in the atmosphere?"
We are facing major climate issues right now in the 21st Century. You've got yourself so wound up with denier misinformation that's clearly misdirected your thinking.
Perhaps you should watch this short clip in what the IPCC actually is and does.
..and all of our "major climate issues" are coming from China and the developing world
the USA has not contributed to any increase in atmospheric CO2 in 50 years
50 years ago CO2 levels were 325ppm....all of the increase since then has come from China and the developing world
(1) For all their imperfections & uncertainties, the scientists aim to present things as honestly & truthfully as they can.
Wrong.
NASA: “This map shows Earth's average global temperature from 2013 to 2017, as compared to a baseline average from 1951 to 1980.
[emphasis mine]
Since you don't have the courage to visit NASA's website, the baseline range in NASA's own words is 1951 to 1980.
That proves NASA is dishonest and untruthful.
Who on this forum would like to know why?
What happened between 1951-1980?
Global cooling.
Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing caused global temperatures to decrease.
Battlefield, tactical and theater nuclear weapons are ground-burst and thus have no effect on the upper atmosphere because no particulate matter is ejected into the upper atmosphere.
Contrary to Hollyweird movies, strategic nuclear weapons (ICBMs and SLBMs) are detonated at high altitude to maximize damage.
Generally, they're detonated at 15-35 miles in altitude, thus they detonate in the upper atmosphere.
Below the tropopause (~11 miles) a nominal-sized particle (~42 microns) will fall at a rate of 2,000 feet per hour.
Not so in the stratosphere and mesosphere where wind speeds are typically 200 MPH. Particles there generally fall into the troposphere after ~7 years or so.
Those particles consist of the Aluminum weapons casing, electronics package, un-fissioned Pu239, un-fissioned U235 and U238 (when used as a tamper and/reflector), and the daughter products of fission of U235 (radioactive and non-radioactive Strontium, radioactive Iodine, radioactive and non-radioactive Cesium), of U238 (requires fast-moving neutron to fission and generally produces radioactive Iodine), and Pu239 (generally Zirconium). I ignored the Noble gases like Xenon, because they fall up, not out, and play no role.
Those particles reflect UV-A, UV-B and UV-C radiation back into Space, which causes Earth to cool.
If NASA had any dignity and were honest, they would compare temperatures for the entire 140-year range since, um, you know, "industrialization."
But, if NASA did that, global warming would be disproved.
So, NASA cherry-picks a date range that shows temperature increases that never happened.
Right?
A temperature decrease of -1.0°C plus a temperature increase of 1.0°C is 0.0°C increase.
If atmospheric nuclear weapons testing had never occurred, then temperatures now compared to that date range would show 0.0°C increase because there would be no change in temperatures.
Why are we not shocked Liberals would stoop to such Göbbelisms?
Well, gee, when discussing the federal minimum wage, Liberals cherry-pick a single month -- specifically February 1968 -- out of the 1,001 months that the federal minimum wage has been in effect (for some workers) and claim the federal minimum wage "adjusted for inflation" (snicker) is less than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kj1065
Not really. Water that supplies the Colorado River Basin comes from snow melt, and the slow and steady supply is important for effective irrigation. Heavy rain on parched soil runs off too quickly to do much good, creating dangerous mud slides in the process.
That only proves Californians are stupid for not building desalinization plants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Furthermore, scientific research discovered decades ago that atmospheric CO2 levels rise as a result of a previous warming period, and lag by 500 or more years, destroying the entire premise of CO2 causing warming. Increases in CO2 is a RESULT of warming, not the cause.
Well? You've had 49 pages. What's the conclusion? What percentage of climate change is due to AGW? You don't know, do you. Of course not. Nobody does. Could have started with that and saved 49 pages of eye strain, carpal tunnel and G-d knows how many joules of planet-heating energy. Those AWS cloud instances don't run on the hopes and dreams of golden haired hippie children. If you're a serious AF hardcore AGW, twelve yrs to Waterworld type then walk the walk. Log off and get busy building a better battery.
The funny thing is, these charlatans could make a birthday party sound like a holocaust.
The Smithsonian Magazine had a headline “CO2 Levels are as high as the we’re Three Million Years Ago”. The following text claimed that during that time, trees were growing at the South Pole. Oh no!!! Trees at the South Pole? What a tragedy. Of course, our 400 ppm CO2 is nothing compared to the Cretaceous Period (time of the dinosaurs) when CO2 was 1000 ppm.
Now let’s translate this ALARMING INFORMATION into a bit of common sense language without all the hyperbole and gloom and doom.
At some point in time, millions of years ago, Antarctica was not a barren, inhospitable continent of Ice, but was lush and full of flora and fauna, and perhaps human civilizations. This, apparently would be a disaster, according to the climate alarmists. But for rational people, what this means is, at some point the earth experienced an extreme glacial period, for which the North and South Poles, and the life once there, was destroyed, and what we see today remain frozen remnants. Such extreme glaciation would surely kill off a very significant portion of all life on earth, humans, fauna and flora, not just at the poles but a significant portion of the entire earth. By contrast, the opposite would see life teaming around the globe, even in places that are now very barren and inhospitable to life.
So, I can see why those who believe in overpopulation, who want to reduce said population would love to have another glacial period to kill off the useless eaters ( you and me), but for the rest of us, a warmer planet more favorable to life over greater areas of the planet would be a good thing, not a bad thing.
Without CO2, life could not exist on earth, and it is absolutely a fact that the higher the levels of CO2, the more abundant life is on earth. Plants thrive in high CO2 concentrations, which then produce oxygen that allows human and animal life to thrive. The abundant plant life provides food for the animals, who provide food for the humans. It’s a nice little arrangement....
Why would anyone not desire this? Particularly when the alternative means a planet wide extinction event as we plunge into another glaciation period?
The ringleaders have no interest in any of that, one way or another. They are trying to use this narrative to gaslight the masses into giving them totalitarian control under the guise of a 'crisis'. Emergency powers. It is just a means to an end, and that end has nothing to do with any concern for the environment.
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.
