Angela Merkel Lectured Trump On Global Warming, Now Germany Abandoning Its Climate Goal.....

Nope. And because man didn't cause the Sahara to dry up before humans existed then it is impossible for humans to have any impact on the climate today. Just like because nature has caused forest fires in the past it is impossible for humans to cause them today. Got it.

 

Instead of guessing why don't you look at the actual research? Higher temperatures will open up more land in Canada, Greenland, and Russia but close off land in the US, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Higher temperatures tend to make some places wetter and others drier. Human only benefited from warming because it ended an ice age and we didn't have tens of trillions of dollars in infrastructure affected, but today global warming will result in far more deserts because we have a lot more warm area than cold area.

 

what does the sahara tell us about climate change?
Also forest fires do not equate to planetary climate change.

 

It tells us that we shouldn't just look at a single region but should look at the whole globe because regions can be affected by regional trends like the Monsoon Cycle.

 

and what is the major observation?

 

Sometimes Trump has to use shock value too get the attention on a subject. If he was gentlemanly about it no one would pay attention.

 

Thats it. You can't assume that the earth was warmer because the Sahara was or that the Sahara got warmer for global reasons. Also, when determining a cause for warming and cooling scientists take into account both natural and human factors, and even take into account both global and local forces.

 

Are you claiming the earth didnt warm and cool eons before man walked the earth?

 

I am worried that the whole carbon tax is a scam. You have no problems costing people trillions of dollars for this carbon tax BS all the while it will do next to nothing for the climate.

The Case against a Carbon Tax
https://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/case-against-carbon-tax

Carbon tax doing more harm than good
http://rdnewsnow.com/article/534024/carbon-tax-doing-more-harm-good-according-chamber-survey

https://www.google.com/search?sourc...4.psy-ab..29.3.1347...0j0i131k1.0.J_4nEgrC-eo

Let's see you spin that!

 

A carbon tax discourages companies from causing excessive global warming without having to make laws and bans. The reality is that the CO2 these companies cause to be emitted are economically damaging because of more droughts and sea level rise. So it makes sense that they should at least pay for some of the damage they cause. Also we can compensate for this tax increase by cutting general business taxes to result in no net increase in taxes.

 

Whats your problem with clean air? Beside cooling and warming?

 

Before humans the only factors that affected climate was nature. After industrialized civilization humans are now introducing their own factors as well.

 

So the money just disappears? Carbon credits are traded with little to no reduction in CO2 output. Studies show this tax will cost far more than it's worth. A degree or two of warming is not going to be the catastrophe the alarmists want you to believe. If they see dollar signs coming their way they will gladly claim the sky is falling.

 

Temperatures in the 21st century are going to rise about 2-4 F with more in coming centuries. We need to keep temperature increases as low as possible. A small carbon tax on a single country is not surprisingly not going to have much of an impact but it is a start in at least doing something to decrease climate change. Carbon taxes aren't really effective when they are low but in Sweden they are $150 per ton and CO2 emissions have fallen by 22%.

 

Well sure, if you can't afford to heat your home I'm sure your CO2 output will go down. You can cherry pick countries that fit your narrative, but you have yet to debunk my links.

 

Here's a path for brains that would tend more to think: Milankovitch Cycles... Then, we should try understanding cosmic rays and what kind of role they play in building up our troposphere and ionosphere, both of which have direct effects on our global climate. So aside from those 3 cycles of Milankovitch, the cosmic rays are vital for our climate too.
Cosmic rays got only one close proximity source and that's the center of our galaxy. Our solar system is revolving around that galactic center and it's orbit is not fixed. It goes up and down 50 light years in each direction before getting back to the galactic equator. Every up and down movement at the galactical orbit of our solar system is effecting the amount of cosmic rays we get. Less cosmic rays is less ionization and less ionization is less cloud cover and that is warmer weather... Less than 100 years of carbon emissions might alter my ass but not the climate...

 

it was a yes or no

 

nothing I like clean air. I also like electricity, cars, refrigerators, hospitals and everything else we need to keep a population of humans this size alive. Stop producing coal fired electricity today, most people without guns will be dead by this time next week. Clean air...is always good so long as you are alive to breathe it.

 

Just out of curiosity of all the factors that effect climate what percentage does man's industrialization play? Remember you are included including things like the sun here which nobody would dispute is 99.9999% of the reason Earth's not an ice planet or even 100% of the reason so there's not lots of room for man's input is there.

 

In Germany we are at 40% renewable energy already.

 

The sun is a very powerful force on the planet but the sun has been pretty stable and has actually been cooling slightly since about 1950. So when measuring different factors in Watts per square meter of heat the sun doesn't really come out with much. The greenhouse effect isn't as significant but is still very significant and the entire planet would be like Antarctica without it. CO2 is only a small part of the greenhouse effect but significantly increasing it will increase the temperature by a few degrees. A few degrees is very small compared to other climate forces but it is enough to have a huge impact on human civilization and cost us a lot of money.

 

The answer from me and every climate scientist is obviously no. Before humans had the capability of impacting the climate it was of course nature that was responsible for everything. However in the past few decades humans are now also affecting the climate as well.

 

Once again if the sun is 99.9% of the reason Earth's not an ice ball what percentage is mans role in climate. I'm asking for a number?

 

What will happen is that people will start to prefer non-CO2 sources and that is exactly what happened in Sweden. Lets say that the CO2 option for something is $100 per month and the non-CO2 option is $110. If you only have a small carbon tax like most countries do then maybe the CO2 option only goes up to $102 which has barely any impact. But if you raise the CO2 option $120 then people will start switching like they did in Sweden.

 

What I am saying is that its imposslble for the sun to be the cause of the warming since it has actually cooled. If you guys really want to refute CO2 as the cause forever you could just show what the real cause actually is and I have never heard that convincingly argued.