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.
You just assume that it should cause warming, which causes you to only search for data to prove it, and ignore data which disproves it.
Fossil fuels will not be around forever, we are moving in that direction. As a matter of fact, if the same people promoting man-made global warming climate change, were not so anti nuclear, most of the US would have been off fossil fuels years ago.
Well, my brother and I have had many a debate over whether or not CO2 is responsible for the warming. So I got interested and did search of other causes as he claims is the case.
Just for starters, we have La Niña and El Niño events. This past year, 2021 experienced a cooling effect caused by a La Niña event. So 2021 is only the fifth warmest year on record.
But that's not the argument. The argument is whether or not CO2 is the culprit. Well, since weather scientists themselves can't find anything else that could be causing the warming, what chance do you and I have? At any rate, a CO2 skeptic scientist makes the claim that weather scientists blame CO2 because they can't think of anything else. We know that climate change takes place naturally or rather, from natural causes and scientists can and have identified those causes. The Little Ice Age for example has been attributed to the Maunder Minimum. The cooling event in AD 536 has been attributed to a probable Krakatoa eruption which is known to have occurred - the exact date of that eruption is uncertain though but the cooling event falls within the timeframe of the eruption so it's plausible.
But our current warming? Only greenhouse gases stand out as a probable cause so far.
What we do know though is that in the early days when global warming was still a prediction, predicted as a result of rising CO2 levels (plus other greenhouse gasses), it was denied and decried. Then global warming became measurable and still it was denied and decried. Then it became undeniable and the goal posts were shifted and it was denied that CO2 was the cause. No alternative has been proposed though, well other than that climate change has always been a feature and that it occurs naturally, the Little Ice Ace being sited as an example. The Great Extinction event another example cited. But those events are well understood and the causes known.
My take on it is that I would rather get warmer than colder and we are at the end of the current interglacial period. But not in my lifetime. One would think that fishing would improve with ocean level rise but in fact it won't due to acidification of the oceans so in my view, there is not benefit to rising oceans.
you are not getting the point...the blunt truth...the ground truth
you could send us back to the stone age... and kill 80% of the worlds population, and you will not CHANGE the path of natural climate change
the climate changes...it swings back and forth from glacial (ice ages) periods to interglacial (warm) periods... the last glacial period peaked/ended about 18,000 years ago..we have been warming since...its not a smooth warming...there are decades/scores/centuries that the warming is flat...there are decades/scores/centuries that the warming is fast.... there are even decade/scores/centuries that it is slightly cooler like the little ice age (which was NOT a glacial period, but a very small period within an interglacial period that it cooled slightly
as the natural warming happens... guess what, it releases co2 from the oceans..from the melting ice..and from the land with decomposed foliage that was trapped by the ice
yes some countries might have a problem with the sea-level that may rise... but remember the tectonic plates are in constant flux, and are floating so many areas might not even feel an effect.... an example would be the tower of London...built 1000 years ago at sea level...guess what it has NOT gone under water..... or did they not teach you about tectonic plates in 9th grade earth science??
you want to be a good custodian of this fine earth... go ahead and buy an electric car... or better yet just buy a bicycle... but understand that while buying an electric car may be a fine gesture, it is made of PLASTIC, which is made from crude oil, and the carbon footprint is huge...also the battery (both lead acid and lithium) are MAJOR TOXIC dangers to the earth... but its a fine (abet useless) gesture, that is putting money in the pockets of "certain" people
No one ever claimed the earths climate doesn't change, so tired of repeating that.
The point isn't natural climate change that occurs over thousands of years it's rapid warming over the last century.
Climate is what you expect - weather is what you get.
. . .
Why is AGCC / AGW a hoax?
Because sequestering carbon is absurd.
. . .
AND
. . .
If "they" really wanted to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, there are remedies that are not being pursued.
#1 remedy - transition to electric traction rail, and scale back automobile usage by 90% or more.
Why? Laws of Physics. The co:efficient of rolling resistance for steel wheel on steel rail is far superior to pneumatic tire on pavement, regardless of the power source. Saving 90-95% of fuel / energy is going to do more to curtail "carbon emissions" than BEVs will.
#2 remedy - superinsulation of housing. Since the 1970s and that forgotten Energy Crisis, the evidence showed that superinsulation trumped passive solar, active solar and practically all other alternative housing strategies. And yet building codes and lenders still won't suggest it. In fact, they discourage it.
#3 remedy - disaster resistant structures. Any newscast is filled with the victims of "extreme" weather, etc, etc. Yet disaster resistant structures have been known and built for generations.
In essence, those special interests that get rich by our wasteful consumption won't ever do anything constructive.
. . .
But the biggest flaw in the AGCC mantra is the claim that the atmosphere is "trapping heat."
If that is true, how is it that the International Space Station and the lunar surface have far higher peak temperatures than at sea level at the Equator?
Turns out the atmosphere reflects / radiates back 30% of the incoming solar input (see: Albedo).
So in FACT, the atmosphere COOLS the planet.
And the specific heat of the atmosphere doesn't "store" much, either.
The oceans are a far better material for "storing heat."
But as long as research grants only go to those who support Karbonite dogma, guess what?
We'll have "rising average temperatures" while the peak record has not been breached.
We'll have new low records, but that doesn't count.
We'll blame every weather anomaly on (wait for it) "climate change" bogeyman.
The con is on.
1) nothing happened in 2021 that hasn't happened before.....for many millennia.
2) how are any of the things that the Left proposes, eg carbon taxes etc, going to stop "climate change"?
3) how do you get Russia, China, India etc to cooperate?
2 & 3 have some validity, but they are deflections. OP didn't ask how to fix it, he asked if people are still denying that 8 Billion people have an impact?
I think yes
I agree we can't force other countries, and we can't force reverse climate change. I do believe we can do some things to minimize our impact, and many (not all) actually benefit us. Fuel efficient cars, led lights, renewable energy, etc., for those that choose it, will save them money. (My led lights last longer and use less energy, they alone won't solve the issues though)
It's reasonable that we won't all agree on 'the right solution ', but like many things, if more people do whatever they are comfortable with, they can collectively make "some" positive difference.
How many more people have to die and how many more people have to lose their homes before we finally unite and agree that climate change is a very serious threat to all of us?
Is this a script for a comedy
series? Hahahahahaha
No mystery. Stick your nose into your car's tailpipe and you'll say, "Eureka, I found it!"
World oil demand forecast for 2022 is 99.1 million barrels per day. That's 1,146 barrels of oil being burned per second. It is impossible to burn that much oil day in and day out and not have the planet warm. Physics 101.
I have to hand it to the climate deniers. They take pretzel logic and data cherry picking to a higher level.
and see, it is you who is not seeing the forest through the trees
you sit there and badmouth how people travel and heat/cool their homes... yet you are typing on a PLASTIC keyboard, using a computer that uses electricity, that has a toxic lithium battery, which you have no problem just throwing in the land fill
there is hardly any parts (minus body and frame) on the "electric" cars that are not made of plastic, or some other petroleum product (including tires and seats)… and the carbon footprint for making those is huge
you don't realized the huge amount of co2 produced just by making the "zero emission" cars, and solar panels (including the batteries), and windmills also
if someone said the ONLY way to stop this is. ban ALL crude oil products (plastics) and no more AC for your homes in California....you would be up in arms...
you sir, what Ed Begley Jr would say "you are a hypocrite"
snip, for ease of reading
But that's not the argument. The argument is whether or not CO2 is the culprit. Well, since weather scientists themselves can't find anything else that could be causing the warming, what chance do you and I have? At any rate, a CO2 skeptic scientist makes the claim that weather scientists blame CO2 because they can't think of anything else. We know that climate change takes place naturally or rather, from natural causes and scientists can and have identified those causes. The Little Ice Age for example has been attributed to the Maunder Minimum. The cooling event in AD 536 has been attributed to a probable Krakatoa eruption which is known to have occurred - the exact date of that eruption is uncertain though but the cooling event falls within the timeframe of the eruption so it's plausible.
.
scientists, don't even know for sure what caused the other 23+ interglacial periods... we are in a interglacial period...and what happens in an interglacial period...the earth warms...not slow and steady, but in sporadic jumps, fast, slow, a little reverse (like the little ice age)(which was NOT a glacial period), slow, fast, etc
what scientist do know, (from Ice core samples) is that the global (daily average) temp during a glacial period low peaks at about 43'f... during an interglacial period it warms to a high peak of about 74'75'f....currently we are at a global daily average of around 60'f (some still say 59')….which means in the interglacial period..we STILL have about 14'f of increase to go UNTIL we hit that normal peak, and TURN to a glacial period...and scientists figure about 10,000 to 20,000 until we turn the page to global cooling....
now has/can man effect that.... scientists say we add about 4-5% of all greenhouse gases....so what will happen...the interglacial period be a little longer.. maybe a little shorter...maybe a degree or two warmer...maybe a degree or two cooler... no one really knows
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.
