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.
This is exactly how i feel. It reminds me of how the political elite behaved during the Covid pandemic. One rule for us to save lives but another for them. It's difficult to buy into it when those that claim the end of the world type scenario's and how should panic live their lives as contrary to what they expect of everyone else.
A perfect example of this was Prince Harry who give a speech recently at the UN about climate change and democracy. This is from the same couple who use their private jet to fly to Ibiza to party, then to southern France just days later for some shopping. There is a psychological element to this that is quite interesting which i feel Jordan Peterson exposed quite well. These people need to convince themselves that they aren't just living a hedonistic lifestyle with no meaning or purpose. They attach themselves to popular social issues to try and make themselves relevant to humanitarian causes to feel a sense of higher purpose. That they've deservedly earned all the privilege and status which they enjoy in life
We learned about that kind of thing in high school. Back a century or more ago, the likes of Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt and the Rockefeller family did the same, but gave out substantial moneys. Ditto, more recently, Bill Gates. My very good high school teacher explained that they just couldn't live with themselves if they didn't give back something, even if it was other people's money. They called it "nobles oblige." Prince Harry and Al Gore lack the virtues that the ones I just mentioned have, but share the motivation.
The simplest test of whether the warming is due to natural variability (eg orbital changes) or human greenhouse gas emissions has already been done, in the 90s, and conclusively showed that the warming is related to greenhouse gases. That’s why mainstream scientists don’t even talk about this question anymore, it is settled.
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the troposphere, not the stratosphere. If orbital changes were causing the current warming, the heating would be uniform, or would even favor the stratosphere. The opposite is happening: the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere actually cools. It’s an unmistakable sign that the source of warming is greenhouse gases, and we know what those are and where they’re coming from.
The simplest test of whether the warming is due to natural variability (eg orbital changes) or human greenhouse gas emissions has already been done, in the 90s, and conclusively showed that the warming is related to greenhouse gases. That’s why mainstream scientists don’t even talk about this question anymore, it is settled.
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the troposphere, not the stratosphere. If orbital changes were causing the current warming, the heating would be uniform, or would even favor the stratosphere. The opposite is happening: the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere actually cools. It’s an unmistakable sign that the source of warming is greenhouse gases, and we know what those are and where they’re coming from.
Yes greenhouse gasses will cause warming (obviously) but there is also natural variability and human land use changes. For example this study says that land use changes have a warming effect
and then there is this
Quote:
Here we use the difference between trends in observed surface temperatures in the continental United States and the corresponding trends in a reconstruction of surface temperatures determined from a reanalysis of global weather over the past 50 years, which is insensitive to surface observations, to estimate the impact of land-use changes on surface warming. Our results suggest that half of the observed decrease in diurnal temperature range is due to urban and other land-use changes. Moreover, our estimate of 0.27 °C mean surface warming per century due to land-use changes is at least twice as high as previous estimates based on urbanization alone
This paper argues that the Midwest cooling high temps in the summer is due to land use changes with more intensive farming
Quote:
. We suggest that agricultural intensification increases the potential for evapotranspiration, leading to cooler temperatures and contributing to increased precipitation. The tendency for greater evapotranspiration on hotter days is consistent with our finding that cooling trends are greatest for the highest temperature percentiles. Temperatures over rainfed croplands show no cooling trend during drought conditions, consistent with evapotranspiration requiring adequate soil moisture, and implying that modern drought events feature greater warming as baseline cooler temperatures revert to historically high extremes.
Yes greenhouse gasses will cause warming (obviously) but there is also natural variability and human land use changes. For example this study says that land use changes have a warming effect
I don’t doubt that land use changes have localized effects. But why would land use changes cause stratospheric cooling? The cause of that is that more heat is being trapped in the troposphere by greenhouse gases. Localized land use changes are like noise in the data; we should correct for that when estimating the warming that has already occurred, but it can’t explain the big picture.
I don’t doubt that land use changes have localized effects. But why would land use changes cause stratospheric cooling? The cause of that is that more heat is being trapped in the troposphere by greenhouse gases. Localized land use changes are like noise in the data; we should correct for that when estimating the warming that has already occurred, but it can’t explain the big picture.
Well it doesn't cause strat cooling. Land use changes for example raise temperatures in urban areas and in areas were there has been deforestation. Land use changes can also cool areas where intensive agricultural practices are happening. These factor into the global temperature network when say NASA or HadCrut5 examine thousands of temperature stations that create a "global temperature"
I read a study a number of years ago that says 50% of the warming in the US is a result of land use changes not GhGs. I'll look for the study. Think it was out of Georgia Tech. This isn't the study but it this one does say that changes of land use has been an underestimated contributor to global warming
Edit: Found it
Quote:
"Across the (United States) as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases," Stone said. "Most large U.S. cities … are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole -- a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change.
"Across the (United States) as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases," Stone said. "Most large U.S. cities … are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole -- a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change.
In addition to natural causes, human activity also plays a lesser role. But still a much much lesser role. Of course, natural causes are the main ones, my dear friends.
And also my previous comment was directed against green extremists. As a result of the actions of the green extremists, consumers are forced to use expensive "green" products, and in many cases the greens are against economic development and hinder business in the name of "protecting nature". I wonder if the green extremists really think that the money is coming from an atm?
An interesting documentary which aired on channel 4 in the UK a number of years ago
I tend to seek for information on scientific matters from science journals that have been read by peers and "juried" down to a larger groups' knowledge base. I don't click on any links from unknown sources, but I would say that any documentary is not so stringently juried.
To my understanding from researching papers written and accepted by the scientific community, there is hard evidence drawn from a wide variety of scientific researchers including core samples taken from earth, fossils, etc that shows that since the dawn of mankind -- believed to be about 8 million years ago, there has been considerable data to suggest that mankind has indeed altered the natural earth cycles from the preceding 4 billion plus years.
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.
As a result of the actions of the green extremists, consumers are forced to use expensive "green" products, and in many cases the greens are against economic development and hinder business in the name of "protecting nature". I wonder if the green extremists really think that the money is coming from an atm?
