Climate Change Consequences

MrTLegal said: ↑
Here is one example to illustrate the point.

The last time that the CO2 Concentration rose by 80 points, which is the amount that the CO2 concentration rose from 1900 to 2000, it took approximately 5000 years. That is a rate of roughly 50x the natural process.

Which could mean deforestation is a big contributor, but we do not know how much deforestation contributes, nor will we do land management and stopping rain forest deforestation to increase co2 loving flora. Probably because the big money to be made by a few is with carbon taxes.

 

I would love to see recycling come back. The best milk comes from a glass jug. Plus kids can make money again picking up glass coke bottles on the side of the road.

 

Volcanic output does not equate to 1000s of times the annual human output. In fact, volcanoes amounts to less than 1 percent of the annual human output.

Oh never mind. Truth means nothing to you.

The notion that CO2 follows warming is also not true. The fact is that roughly 90% of temperature increases follows CO2 increases.

Oh never mind. You don't need to supply any sources for your claims and all my sources are bunk. Obviously.

Perhaps you would like to do some research on ice core data? I would love to hear your evidence for why ice core concentration numbers today don't match with atmospheric collection.

YIKES

 

Do you really think that scientists are unable to measure the impact of deforestation?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

 

Yes when hard science creates models based on their understanding of processes and they do not match reality, they lose certainty that their understanding is complete enough. But not with these climatologists!! Not what I think of when I think of science.

And then what drove the fudging we now know occurred? What was the motivation? When they do this, the deniers have more reason to believe AGW is a ruse to send more income to the top.

 

The differential changed, it did not increase. I was refuting his erroneous explanation of averages.

Let's put it to you. Do you believe, as he did, that it is impossible for the global average temperature of the planet to increase without the temperature in his specific location increasing?

 

**** man. I did not prove them wrong, I proved you wrong. Let's try it again.

Values: 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30
Average: 15.142

Values: 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 35
Average: 15.857

Looky there! The temperature in KS stayed the same while the global average went up!

 

Why don't they account for the increase in the green area on earth? We are actually extracting more CO2 by the increased green area than we are releasing via deforestation.

How do the global warming models account for the increased green area? My guess is that they just ignore it!

 

Differential equations always require boundary conditions to be set in order to solve them with an actual result. Who knows if the boundary conditions used for the equations have any relationship to reality?
If this were *real* science we would have ONE model that actually resembles reality. The fact that we don't have that makes *all* the models questionable!

 

It can't. As you proved to yourself if you will actually look at what you did!

Do you have *any* idea of what you are doing?
I said: "In order for the *average* to go up then either *all* members of the set have to go up or the differential between the top and the bottom has to increase with the bottom staying where it is." (bolding mine, upside).

Guess what? The differential between the top and bottom went UP! From 29 to 34!

Now, with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics saying that entropy increases then how did the differential go up? An insertion of heat into the system would cause *all* temperatures to go up!

And, as I said before, an increased differential would result in *more* extreme weather events, not fewer. Yet we are seeing *fewer* extreme weather events.

Would you like to enlighten us on how higher temperature differentials can produce fewer extreme weather events?

Are you beginning to understand why the claims of the AGW religionists are being criticized more and more?

 

Depends on the record. It is in some and not others and even then it is well within the statistical uncertainty which really means maybe, maybe not.

BTW, the reason for the warmth was the El Nino where the ocean which is heated by the sun gives up a pop of heat to the atmosphere which is eventually transported to the poles and escapes into space.

Oh, and another thing, one of the hottest areas in the land/ocean record came from a part of Africa that has no recording stations. Hunh. Go figure.

 

"Climate Change" is a political issue not a scientific one. Usually when political hacks rant about it they end up saying something about a world wide trend into "extreme weather" and rising biosphere temperatures". Getting a scientific justification for this meme is dodgy at best because hacks can make up 'proof' for anything they say.

It's not hopeless tho, in this wonderful info age we live in we can grab historical raw data sets and see for ourselves what's really happening.

The IPCC 'says' that sea levels are rising at the rate of 3mm per year, and they supposedly know this from satellites and tide gauges. That by itself is crazy because tide gauges and satellites are simply not capable of providing a number like that. Even if it were true they don't say how long this has been going on, there are no world wide numbers for sea levels over say, the past few thousand years.

Like I said, it's a political issue and not a scientific one.

 

So they just asked the natives if this is hotter than ever, and they agreed? ha ha ha

 

Guess so.

 

Claiming that Global Warming means that every single place on the planet is warming over a span of just two years is astoundingly ignorant.

Please stop embarrassing yourself

 

I "know" that global warming takes an AVERAGE of GLOBAL temperature increases over more than two years.

I "know" that actual scientists say that AGW is a fact and that means 97% of them.

 

You should read your links. This was a article that said the process of deforestation adds more co2 than all the world's cars and trucks. No where in the article did it say what deforestation itself, the loss of trees intaking co2 adds to co2 levels. They were talking about logging, and farming where the forests grew and other economic activity produces more co2 than cars and trucks.

No where in the article does it compare world acreage of forests to world acreage today... So you really didn't give me anything worthy of addressing the questions I asked. No surprise for I have posted many times about his issue, and I never get answers from the alarmists, except one time, when someone said some organization speaks of it. But no one hears them, that is, the info is never made public. Only the fossil fuel problem gets attention.

 

Well that does not sound quite right. If you mean the additional flora in areas that generally are low in flora compensates for the loss of rain forests... I think that would require exponentially more new flora than rainforest loss. Small shrubs and plants are not huge canopies of trees.

My point is, why not publically announce studies that correlate the rise in co2 with the vast loss of the forests say over this same time period being used where co2 jumped. For since carbon taxes will not take place here anytime soon, the issue of reforesting, land management and halting rain forest deforestation should be in the news, along with the rejection of this remedy which has been the case to date. This is what makes some of us suspicious about the alarmism. For there is something we can do, but are not doing it. Why is the question if this is such a critical issue?

 

We don't know exactly what the consequences will be. Probably pretty bad. Maybe not human extinction, but I wouldn't completely rule out the extinction of our economy, in a worst case scenario.

The sad thing is that these worst case scenarios don't need to happen. We could be working to, at a minimum, ameliorate those consequences. And we could even make capitalists happy doing that. Because the U.S. has all the conditions to take the leadership in the technologies that will be necessary when the effects start being very obvious. And these technologies could be developed faster with cooperation between the government and the private sector. Private companies could end up making a bundle with these technologies. Just not the all-powerful Oil industry. They are not completely on board. They've hinted they want to draw closer but... not yet there. And their influence over politicians, to no do anything, is very strong. And of these over the not-thinking masses is just as strong. So, while other countries are already working on those technologies, we're still debating if Global Warming is real or not.

It should remind us of how the Great Spanish empire stopped being the world leading power. While they were burning scientific books because they were considered "sacrilegious", the rest of the world was busy using them to build faster ships, more efficient industries, and more modern technological products.

 

I can think of 50 items in any man's life more important to be concerned with than the climate.
This is secular humanism putting folly into the minds of people who have not figured out what life is really about.
Take care of your family and find God is my advice.

 

Myopia is no excuse.

I CARE what we leave to our kids unlike many (supposedly religious) Republicans

And then there's the fact that addressing climate change has the added benefit of

Making our air,water,and soil cleaner

Mitigating the effect of having to buy oil from petro misfits

Being a CHEAPER and essentially everlasting technology (the wind will blow, the sun will shine,and the water will move)

 

Are women still working because Trump was supposed to put a stop to that? Are your daughters still safe? How about WW3, since he wasn't responsible enough to control nukes all by himself. Forget that one too? =)

By the way, we only have accurate temp readings from the last maybe 100 yrs. Everything else is guesswork. We were hotter. We were colder. We had extremes highs and lows. No doubt we are having an impact now, but there is ZERO, absolutely ZERO evidence of how much of an effect we're having. Its again, all guesswork. 1%, 5%, .0000001% We really don't know, and we especially don't know what would happen if we ceased using oil right now. Would it stop the temp from changing? How much would it effect? We still have no idea.

 

I am 100% with you.
BUT -
If you are the Koch Brothers, or an oil company, or a coal company - those side benefits are profit-destroying.

 

You try to deflect and change the subject, but lamely.
WHAT MONEY???
There is money in denying Global warming from money supplied by the Koch brothers, etc... But what about the vast majority of scientists who aren't on the take? What motive is there for them to lie????

I can't believe you are serious -- I suspect you are just trolling. I won't feed a troll.
Adios.

 

That sir will be the end result of all this climate change bunkum which can only be enforced by ever more government