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.
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
Now, lets address more concrete matters that are not based on opinion and deal directly with proven facts. For several decades we’ve had the climate change alarmists warning us of impending cataclysm.... in the 1970’s the doomsday scenario was not Global Warming .... it was Global Cooling, and we were facing an impending “Ice age”, which could see New York City buried under a mile of ice by the year 2000. Each winter storm was cited as proof that we were seeing this come to pass. THEN, sometime between then, and the 1980’s, the script was flipped, with the new doomsday scenario became man made CO2 caused Global Warming, along with it’s cataclysmic claims of sea levels rising and coastal regions submerged and erased by the year 2012. I am not even going to try to list all of the failed predictions, because there are just too many. Nor am I going to try to list the many times this consortium of propagandists posing as scientists were caught fabricating and manipulating data, and constructing faulty computer modeling programs whose dire predictions never came close to materializing. (think: the Hockey Stick). But pointing these facts out to the members of this Climate Change Cult is like talking to a box of donuts. Total waist of time, because that’s the power of belief ... and “believers” are impervious to facts, and immediately reject anything which may challenge those accepted beliefs, just as the religious extremist does.
This is irrelevant to what we know today. In fact to what we've known for years with respect to AGW.
I wanted to highlight this specific segment for a reason.
You want to claim that in spite of years of being bombarded with endless gloom and doom and cataclysmic predictions from the Climate Alarmists, of which not a single prediction has been even remotely accurate ... that is irrelevant to what we know today? PLEASE.
The reality is, some of us knew this was pure nonsense from the very beginning, while it’s taken others time to reach the same conclusion. Yet there remain others, hopefully a small minority who remain blind, and perhaps they never will see the truth. There’s a sucker born every minute. And while there are a lot of wonderfully smart people in the world, there is apparently no shortage of idiots, as proven by the continued existence of the democrat party
The biggest problem you all have is that you just can’t contain your insatiable desire to tell a lie bigger than the last one ... it’s like an illness. So, as the lies get more and more outlandish, even those you had fooled before, eventually say, hey, wait a minute... now that’s just crazy .... and that leaves you with an audience of idiots that keeps getting smaller, thank goodness.
Not too many are buying your snake oil anymore. Small pockets of people, like the ones who might be dumb enough to vote for AOC. That’s your base. The rest of us understand that this green new deal climate change insanity would result in the collapse of western civilization, and we ain’t having any part of it.
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.
Of course, I know this ... what I can’t get over is how anyone can still be fooled by such obvious idiotic nonsense.
They will say “three million years ago, CO2 was so bad, trees were actually growing in Antarctica!” Followed by the chorus of idiots .. “ Oh My God, we just can’t allow that to happen again!”
What kinda mentality can embrace such craziness? It’s frightening to think we live amongst people this bloody nuts. I don’t expect everyone think to ask the most obvious question, which is how did CO2 get that high without Millions of humans driving SUV’s and generating all that C02 3 million years ago. But I really do expect everyone to have enough common sense to understand that trees growing in Antarctica is not a sign of the apocalypse, but actually a good thing.
Of course, I never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
It's marvelous to observe the shameless rhetorical mendacity of some deniers. Hard to say whether they believe their own nonsense, or whether they simply aim to score Debating Club points by playing any arguments (arguments 100% true or 95% false).
Listen, I’d like to get one straight answer outta you ... given all of the hyperbole over an increase in CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm being a sign of impending disaster ... and the commensurate claim that the increase is largely due to human activity .... what caused CO2 levels to reach this same level 3 million years ago, without fossil fuel use, coal power generators and Ford SUV’s?
The second question is, how did CO2 levels reach 1000 ppm (2.5 times today’s level) during the Cretaceous Period, without humans creating it?
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.
That only proves Californians are stupid for not building desalinization plants.
That's absolutely right.
A little off topic, but not totally (since we have the statement about science being so honest) ... guess what also happened between the 1950’s and 1980’s ?
1) Medical Science Proposed the value of fluoride for building strong teeth and preventing cavities. The reality was, tons of toxic fluoride was a byproduct of nuclear weapon production, and they needed to dispose of it. So they dreamed up a scheme which actually paid them to dump this crap into the water supply.
2) the incidence of lung cancer began to rise, as a result of open air testing of nuclear weapons, spreading hot particles around the world which people were sometimes inhaling. The cover story? Cigarettes! Tobacco! The leading cause of lung cancer became tobacco.
Side note: now in 2021, cigarette smokers are almost as rare as unicorns, with a dramatic decrease in smoking over the past 30 years ... yet the rates of lung cancer have not decreased commensurate with the decrease in smoking over that timeframe, as one would naturally expect, given its role as the number one cause of lung cancer.. So, the next big fat lie was ... secondhand smoke is even more dangerous than firsthand smoke.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 07-14-2021 at 09:14 PM..
I'm not selling anything. I'm addressing the myths, lies and disinformation about AGW.
The goal is to change behavior in a way calculated to eliminate CO2 and other greenhouse emissions, clean up all the garbage, etc. You don't actually have to win the "Climate Change is Real" argument to get there. You just have to do the things that are green that actually make logical sense. Thorium is a way better power source than Coal, or Natural Gas, or Wind, or Solar, or pretty much everything else. You win the argument by providing the cheapest, most abundant and most reliable electrical power source. EV's are better than ICE's in every conceivable way but one: Quickness of refueling. Cleaning up the air is its own reward. Cleaning up the water is its own reward. Clean environments make humans, livestock, wild game, wild animals and everything else healthier.
You can get a lot done by just dropping the unwinnable fight over "Climate Change is Real." Any adverse weather you can point to, the opposition can just pull out something worse. That's precisely why -- in spite of being on your side of things for the most part -- I'm doing exactly that. If I can do it, so can a Climate Denier. It's colloquially known as Steelmaning the opposition -- the exact opposite of Strawmanning. You make the opposition's best arguments for them, then work from there.
I've long concluded that you can't win the argument. The climate and the weather can be cherry picked in an infinite number of ways. Climate Alarmists have been doing it for years, so naturally it's being done right back to them. That's to be expected. Turnabout is fair play. The hottest day ever recorded was almost 100 years ago. The coldest day ever recorded was on the 21st July, 1983. The largest tornado ever recorded what the Tri-State Tornado of 1925. The worst drought in US history is the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. The biggest, nastiest hurricane/typhoon ever measured is Typhoon Tip of 1979. The deadliest was probably much larger: The Great Hurricane of 1780, which killed 20,000 people in a Caribbean that was vastly less populated than today. As global warming was supposed to be whipping up storms like crazy, we went from 2004 to to 2012 without any significant hurricanes hitting the USA. Conclusion: It's not all that difficult to counter the whole, "Of course climate change is real! Just look at the weather!" argument. Across the board, "the worst" happened too long ago to connect it to Climate Change. So just stop trying to make this argument.
Better idea: Just do the right things for whatever reason sells. If the power grid is maximum green and zero carbon emission, who cares why it got that way? If EV's and clean burning Ethanol/Methanol replace fossil fuels because they actually work better and safer, and not "because climate change," who cares? You get a lot more done when you're not endlessly beating your head against the proverbial brick wall.
It's been flooding in the part of Colorado I'm in, keep getting alerts on my phone. It's also 52 degrees, which rather sucks.
The monsoon season started in the SW so we are getting rain every day but not everywhere. It is spotty like always but some of it has been torrential and causes flash floods. That doesn't help the drought much. I haven't seen it as dry as it has been the last year or so. Even the desert plants, that are used to the heat and dry conditions are struggling. The usual ground cover plants that we see in spring and summer (holding the sand and what passes as soil) have not appeared like usual. That leaves the exposed surface vulnerable. Remember the dust bowl?
The Pacific Nino/Nina pattern drives the moisture but something seems out of whack. When it is dry one place it is usually wet at another. When it is hot and dry in the SW and drought conditions clear to Canada, with 117 degrees in BC, this does not seem to be the typical cycle. The La Nina ended in May and we are in a neutral pattern but the experts think that it will likely be back soon.
Please know your facts when discussing climate change.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide measured at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory peaked for 2021 in May at a monthly average of 419 parts per million (ppm), the highest level since accurate measurements began 63 years ago, scientists from NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego announced today (June 7, 2021).
You are asking the same question twice.
You a Google search on what caused CO2 levels during the Cretaceous Period pulls up many hits.
Also Google search what caused CO2 levels to rise before humans evolved?
Give it a try. Come back and tell us what you learned, concerned.
So, you won’t answer. I didn’t think you would. And No, each question dealt with drastically different CO2 levels, separated by a hundred million years of time. So they were not even remotely close to the same question. But both were rhetorical, and both have the same answer, which you do not want to address.
The fundamental point being the inconveniences in AGW theory, none the least of which questions the dubious claim that today’s atmospheric CO2 levels are dangerously excessive, and attributable to man’s activities, when that couldn’t have been so in the past, since man was not there, yet past levels were exponentially higher.
So, the contention must be, by default, that whatever the source of these high CO2 concentrations were in the past, no longer exist now?
We can skip the cataclysmic predictions ... one inconvenience at a time. I don’t wish to overtax you.
I would be OK with Californians staying in California, but they can't. The western states are becoming too dry to support all those millions of people. The parts of the nation that still have plenty of potable water will get more crowded and expensive.
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?"
Yes today China emits the most CO2, but even if China did not exist, there is no way CO2 levels would have remained at 325ppm, as every other country including the US is still pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Quote:
For context, at the beginning of this time period—1850—the United Kingdom was the top emitter of CO₂, with emissions nearly six times those of the country with the second-highest emissions, the United States. France, Germany, and Belgium completed the list of top five emitters. Tellingly, while the United States was the world’s second-largest emitter in both years, its emissions in 2011 were 266 times greater than those in 1850.
All of that CO2 is still in earths systems, one way or another. Try as you may, you cannot blame it all on China.
Listen, I’d like to get one straight answer outta you ... given all of the hyperbole over an increase in CO2 from 300 ppm to 400 ppm being a sign of impending disaster ... and the commensurate claim that the increase is largely due to human activity .... what caused CO2 levels to reach this same level 3 million years ago, without fossil fuel use, coal power generators and Ford SUV’s?
The second question is, how did CO2 levels reach 1000 ppm (2.5 times today’s level) during the Cretaceous Period, without humans creating it?
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.
It's all out there on Google or whichever search engine you prefer.
The rise in global temperatures and the corresponding retreating of the glaciers and continental ice sheets is not going to cause the end of the world and maybe Antarctica will become inhabitable again and Iceland and Greenland will be ice free. And yes, more CO2 means more plant food, as long as there is enough water for them 'cause then they will need more water.
In the past when the CO2 level rose so high, it was a slow change which gave plants time to adapt. Many plants of today have not completely adapted to the low CO2 levels we had until recently, so are fairly well adapted to the new CO2 high. Other plants not so much. This recent rise in CO2 is much faster than in the past, so is not necessarily the best for low CO2 adapted plants. I doubt it will kill them though.
So really, as Greenland becomes ice free, so those displaced by rising sea water can all start moving there and likewise with Antarctica. Antarctica is going to take a while longer so in the meantime, I'm sure there are and will be more, vacant desert regions to move to in the meantime.
The downside is that it will be the richest agricultural regions that will be lost first. But hey, who cares? As long as we have warmer weather to bask in the sun. Besides, it's not us who be forced to move, it will be our childrens children and their children.
A good point to remember is that the earth was heading into an ice age before the global warming phenomena.
There you can see the downward trend right into the early 1900's. There seems to be a blip coinciding with WWII and a slight leveling coinciding with nuclear testing. The overall trend has been an steady rise from the early 1900's.
Looking into the past, we can see where we came out of the last ice age and how we had been slowly cooling until a hundred years ago. That dip in the green line is the Younger Dryas. That event slowed down the warming. As has been said, the inter glacial periods tend to be just over 12 thousand years which makes us due for the next ice age. But we've stopped it, right? Maybe over doing a bit though.
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.
