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.
Yes, it's my opinion that there is an inadequate sample size, & there's no concensus in the scientific community on man made climate change. When there's concensus, I'll change my opinion, & remove all my ceiling fans.
Also, it's my opinion is that those who believe in the climate hoax have; HVAC systems, cars, fly on commercial jets, buy Chinese stuff, use plastics, eat meat, own ceiling fans, ect.. They have the same carbon footprints as those who think man-made climate change is malarkey...like me.
Why that? Why can't they lead by example? If they are right, then why are they knowingly killing Mother Earth.
You speak a lot of truths here.
I've been in the HVAC biz for 34 yrs. I understand energy savings I understand green energy.
I've studied LEED green energy principles. The science behind all of this is beyond skewed.
There's no money in reasonable rational discussion, it's fear mongering every day all day.
It's a wealth transfer from the the tax payer to big green via bills like the inflation reduction act, that Biden admitted was a green energy payout.
Total crap. The moment the term Net-zero-carbon is used, identifies the user as either an establishment hack, or a brain dead idiot. It’s a euphemism for extreme population reduction.
not ... people with an agenda... NASA, NOAA, the IPCC and ... universities
Those people also have an agenda. Especially universities. So that's a kinda weird thing to say. I'm not particularly arguing with you - on the overall concepts - but that was a horrible example.
"Climate is not weather" - strictly speaking absolutely true - but climate is a collection of weather. There is no climate "descriptor" that isn't formed from an aggregate of consecutive "weather" information.
From WIKI and 1000 other places: "Climate is the long-term weather pattern in a region..."
So there ya have it: Literally impossible to determine climate without discussing the weather.
"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."
CLIMATE CHANGE HOAX
How do we know it’s a hoax?
Because every weather anomaly is blamed on “climate change,” with the implication that the change is anthropogenic. When called out as a “climate denier” the yammerheads conveniently omit “anthropogenic.” Climate DOES change but skeptics aren’t persuaded that trace gases and man’s activity is affecting the planet, especially when there’s a fusion reactor 8 light minutes away, blasting us with solar storms that have driven the aurora borealis to new “low” latitudes. ( And have affected the atmosphere on Neptune, triggering massive storms)
And the claim of “rising averages” is another clue. Averages can be mean, median or mode, each giving a different value. No one is mentioning any rise in the record PEAK temperature. Can’t “nudge” that figure. And recently, Antarctica recorded a record LOW temperature. How do you get a “low” record when you’re claiming a “rising average”? Heat flows to cold. What stopped the flow to the south pole?
Blaming CO2 and methane is a joke, since the #1 factor in local climate is water vapor (clouds).
Another clue is the peak temperatures recorded on places OUTSIDE of the “heat trapping” atmosphere.
- - - TEMPERATURE DATA - - -
1. Earth max : (134.33°F)
2. Space station max : (250°F)
3. Lunar surface max : (242.33°F)
There is at least a 116°F cooling effect.
For the sake of argument, let us assume that there IS a dramatic change in progress. What remedies are we told to embrace ? “Sequestering carbon” (lol) - that’s CO2, what plants breathe (see Photosynthesis). CO2 is already a trace gas (0.04%), and without plants, we won’t have our (21%) O2 atmosphere for much longer. (Oxygen is highly reactive and will bind with many elements) And selling “carbon credits” is a big clue that big money expects to get rich off commissions.
Banning fossil fuels sounds reasonable - except, there are no alternatives to meet current and future demand.
Wind and solar, being intermittent and irregular, require either expensive storage or back up power generators - fueled by petroleum, natural gas, coal, etc.
And the mandate to shift to Battery Electric Vehicles is a dead giveaway of fraud.
If we want to be “scientific” the laws of Physics regarding co:efficient of rolling resistance suggest that the proper remedy is steel wheel on steel rail (railway), not pneumatic tire on pavement. Rail has a 20:1 advantage. You can move 20 times as much cargo per unit of fuel by rail than by truck, bus, etc.
Transferring 85-90% of all land transport to electric traction rail will dramatically reduce power consumption, and not overload the utility grid, as would a 1:1 swap with BEVs.
If “the real powers” were concerned about wasting fuel, why is there not a world wide initiative for SUPERINSULATION. Conservation has the potential to cut fuel consumption. But, no-o-o-o, governments subsidize waste (utility grants to “poor” folks), while ignoring the underlying cause - government bureaucracy & meddling (via rigid building codes that limit builders to certain practices, not goals).
And to minimize the cost from natural disasters, construct disaster resistant resilient structures and homes, as a rule, not an exception. The preponderance of wood frame structures is absurd. They’re susceptible to damage from UV, temperature extremes, high wind, flying debris, fire, water, flood, snow load, mold, mildew, insects and vermin, and yet they’re still being built around the country. Ironically, are even rebuilt in disaster zones!
Lastly, temperature is a factor of surface area per unit input of sunlight. That’s why the polar regions are colder than the equator. What do you think would happen if humanity “thickened” the life bearing volume by increasing the surface area? Temperatures would fall. (That’s why a jungle is cooler than a desert at the same latitude) Skeptics argue that cities with multistory structures are heat islands. But WHAT is the cause of all that waste heat? The consumption of fuel for Transportation -and- internal climate control (Air conditioning / heat pumps, for example). Shifting to efficient electric traction rail (95% savings) and superinsulating buildings would dramatically change that. And while we’re redesigning our cities to be more efficient, let’s boost greenspace - roof top gardens and parks - external helical ramps around tall buildings, filled with topsoil and plants. Why not amplify wildlife habitat while we're at it?
In essence, if the threat was real - real solutions would be implemented.
But.They're.Not.
Total crap. The moment the term Net-zero-carbon is used, identifies the user as either an establishment hack, or a brain dead idiot. It’s a euphemism for extreme population reduction.
"Yes, a growing coalition of countries, cities, businesses and other institutions are pledging to get to net-zero emissions. More than 70 countries, including the biggest polluters – China, the United States, and the European Union – have set a net-zero target, covering about 76% of global emissions.'"
31 Aug 2023 China’s Coal Power Binge Accelerates: over 300 More Plants on the Way
A report from two energy research groups on Tuesday found China has over 300 more coal power plants in the works, issuing permits for another 52 gigawatts of coal power in just the first half of 2023 alone.
The GEM/CREA report said it has now become effectively impossible for China to come close to its promises of peak carbon emissions in 2030 without wasting titanic sums of money by canceling many of the projects under construction.
Next up, I’m sure you’re prepared to explain to everyone how paying more for gasoline and electricity, and paying carbon taxes are going to lower CO2 levels?
While you’re at it, explain to us why we should dismiss the opinions of 1600 separate individuals in favor of the stated government alphabet agencies like NASA, who some suggest stands for “Never A Straight Answer”, or the United Nations IPCC who has already been sued by the very scientists it claims to support its findings, to have their names removed from the final IPCC report, because they disagreed with the report’s conclusions?
Do you not see the absurdity in this FALSE CLAIM that there is this unanimous scientific consensus, when the alleged members of this consensus have to go to court to force the IPCC to remove their names, because they don’t agree?
Americans love cheap energy, it's their right to the inefficient use of fossil fuels.
The IPCC and all the other scientific organizations have performed actual research. 1600 signatories that never even performed research is somehow meaningful, why because you like their claim that climate change is nothing to worry about.
Never said that the theory behind climate change was unanimous, it's a very large majority with overwhelming evidence..
Americans love cheap energy, it's their right to the inefficient use of fossil fuels.
The IPCC and all the other scientific organizations have performed actual research. 1600 signatories that never even performed research is somehow meaningful, why because you like their claim that climate change is nothing to worry about.
Never said that the theory behind climate change was unanimous, it's a very large majority with overwhelming evidence..
In principle what you are saying makes sense. However, you are not taking reality into account. The IPCC has discredited itself. The scientific community who has or is doing the research is compromised. That does not mean that they are wrong, but rather, that they cannot be trusted. You know full well what would happen if a scientists produced findings that go against the narrative. It's like forcing a confession out of a criminal. Such a forced confession is actually meaningless. Do you know how many people were burned at the stake after confessing under torture?
Those 1600 (1609 actually), are not under threat of losing their funding or being ostracised. And just because a person is a top astrophysicist does not mean that they are incapable of doing their research. I doubt there would be any astrophysicist amount them - they rely on funding.
In the future people will read this stuff and marvel that it was ever written by an adult. They will think us rubes for entertaining these ideas.
"Boiling the ocean" is a metaphor for futility.
(NB the oceans will boil in about 1 billion years as the sun evolves into a red giant, but we won't have any part in that.)
Boiling is just a figure of speech, syrely you heard the term used this summer, it's not meant to accurately describe the water temperature. The Carribean waters were 100 degrees, pretty close to hot tub settings of 102 degrees. Very damaging to fisheries and reefs. Many important points in the article, AMOC changing as described in the article, also the Mediterranean set a record. You need to move past the word boiling.
Quote:
That tracks when you realize that July was the hottest month ever in recorded history, and we’re likewise seeing oceanic temperatures hit worrying highs around the world. Off the coast of Florida, the water has hit 100ºF multiple times in last week, a temperature more suitable to hot tubs than the open sea. The unavoidable truth is that our oceans are warming faster than predicted, and it is beginning to feel like the hackneyed “frog in a slowly boiling pot” analogy for climate change is more apt than ever.
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.
If they are right, then why are they knowingly killing Mother Earth.
