Global Warming

[forkup]

If going green is so bad why are the countries who fully try to promote it not going bankrupt?
New data shows solar energy creates more jobs in America than any other industry
Seems it's a pretty good job creator.

Thank you for letting me use your links.

One census assesses the steep job growth created by the solar industry between 2010 and 2016.

That is job growth during the Obama administration which sucked. Period. It was less than 2% with most the jobs being created being government jobs or jobs funded by huge gifts of cash by giving Solar companies "tax rebates" they could literally sell for $100's of millions of dollars.

So, your link gives us old data showing the terrible job growth of the Obama administration being the extremely expensive weak electrical power of Solar. Now we will have to build Natural Gas and Nuclear power to offset that decade of loss.

That is three of your links that you must not of read. Old information that proves under Obama, our economy was in very real danger.

Really.... the last time I checked Obama had POSITIVE growth in 6 of his 8 years in office. He presided over the second largest sustained period of economic growth in history. But the economy was in danger? You know what I find so interesting about the doom and gloom as stated by people like you? The speed by which you guys take credit for a booming economy the moment the other side isn't in power. It's pretty remarkable considering the brazen nature of it. Job growth isn't job growth because it was under Obama...... really? Subsidies for solar isn't fair? But subsidies to farmers because they get screwed by a president who causes tariffs to be implemented is OK?

 

[cnm]

"IR radiation", you mean instead of radiation radiation? IR is infrared radiation, there is no need to be redundant by adding the word radiation to the abbreviation of infrared radiation.[...]
Is there evidence that IR is heated in the atmosphere? Nobody here has ever posted a link to any such evidence.

InfraRed. UltraViolet.

Ffs. Not only scientifically illiterate.

 

[elektra]

"IR radiation", you mean instead of radiation radiation? IR is infrared radiation, there is no need to be redundant by adding the word radiation to the abbreviation of infrared radiation.[...]
Is there evidence that IR is heated in the atmosphere? Nobody here has ever posted a link to any such evidence.

InfraRed. UltraViolet.

Ffs. Not only scientifically illiterate.

Right

 

[cnm]

You're [elektra] not even in this debate, you're a high frequency posting Clown.
`

Never a truer word. The clown just uses a mishmash of words it doesn't understand.

 

[elektra]

Really.... the last time I checked Obama had POSITIVE growth in 6 of his 8 years in office. He presided over the second largest sustained period of economic growth in history. But the economy was in danger? You know what I find so interesting about the doom and gloom as stated by people like you? The speed by which you guys take credit for a booming economy the moment the other side isn't in power. It's pretty remarkable considering the brazen nature of it. Job growth isn't job growth because it was under Obama...... really? Subsidies for solar isn't fair? But subsidies to farmers because they get screwed by a president who causes tariffs to be implemented is OK?

Nobody would build solar without the free government money given to the executives, money you call a subsidy. Farms were built without government subsidies. Solar Panels are built with taxpayers money. That is a huge difference that simply stating, "subsidies", ignores

Obama said the jobs Trump created, "just are.. du buta uh, nnnnot coming uh ..... back"

 

[elektra]

- This is one of the most committed countries in the world on climate change. Sweden tackles climate change
Seems their economic growth is pretty nice.Sweden GDP Growth Rate | 1981-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

Seems Sweden is in trouble. Sweden can no longer meet its electricity needs.
Germany becomes Scandinavia’s not-so-green battery

And lets not forget Sweden's growth is extremely bad, .5%

 

[elektra]

"IR radiation", you mean instead of radiation radiation? IR is infrared radiation, there is no need to be redundant by adding the word radiation to the abbreviation of infrared radiation.[...]
Is there evidence that IR is heated in the atmosphere? Nobody here has ever posted a link to any such evidence.

InfraRed. UltraViolet.

Ffs. Not only scientifically illiterate.

Why thank you, I was wrong. I can admit a mistake. You on the other hand, have not added any fact other than pointing out my one mistake. I can handle that, being wrong about an abbreviation. You can not handle having no facts to back up your opinion. It would be nice to see you post some facts. Anyhow, thanks for the correction.

 

[forkup]

Really.... the last time I checked Obama had POSITIVE growth in 6 of his 8 years in office. He presided over the second largest sustained period of economic growth in history. But the economy was in danger? You know what I find so interesting about the doom and gloom as stated by people like you? The speed by which you guys take credit for a booming economy the moment the other side isn't in power. It's pretty remarkable considering the brazen nature of it. Job growth isn't job growth because it was under Obama...... really? Subsidies for solar isn't fair? But subsidies to farmers because they get screwed by a president who causes tariffs to be implemented is OK?

Nobody would build solar without the free government money given to the executives, money you call a subsidy. Farms were built without government subsidies. Solar Panels are built with taxpayers money. That is a huge difference that simply stating, "subsidies", ignores

Obama said the jobs Trump created, "just are.. du buta uh, nnnnot coming uh ..... back"

Both are sustained by taxpayer money.There is no difference. The government didn't start solar cell producing plant, private industry did. Tesla wasn't founded by the government, etc. The only difference between the 2 instances I can see is that you don't LIKE the solar industry and by extension green technology, because people turning a profit and employing people in that sector, makes your economic argument against climate change weaker. Not that it matters since you can't even give a clear reason why we should risk our long term future on the CHANCE that climate change isn't happening. Providing you would even be able to establish that, something you can't.
I have a question. Do you consider the profit being made by companies using computers as something that doesn't count? Computers were invented by government funding, does that taint their usefulness? What about the internet, super conductors, most medicine? All of them rely on the government for it's origin.

 

[elektra]

Both are sustained by taxpayer money.There is no difference.

The farming industry is sustained through subsidies? That is pure bullshit. Prove it otherwise. I have been reducing your long winded replies into tiny little topics you can address but you have been unable to respond to all the facts that I have been posting that show you wrong.

Yes, show us how the farming industry is sustained through subsidies.

 

[forkup]

- This is one of the most committed countries in the world on climate change. Sweden tackles climate change
Seems their economic growth is pretty nice.Sweden GDP Growth Rate | 1981-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

Seems Sweden is in trouble. Sweden can no longer meet its electricity needs.
Germany becomes Scandinavia’s not-so-green battery

And lets not forget Sweden's growth is extremely bad, .5%

Lol you just did what you claimed I do. From the article.
Normally Sweden is a net exporter to the German market, but in recent weeks it has become a net importer,” said Tim Steinert at Berlin-based consultancy Enervis.*
And the reason why.
(Montel) Germany is exporting unusually large volumes of power to Scandinavia this summer as hot, dry weather reverses the typical flow of Nordic hydropower to Europe.
So, because of the fact that Sweden was having unusually hot weather they couldn't meet their energy needs, although usually they have a surplus.
Not exactly a good argument if you DON'T believe the world is getting hotter.

 

[forkup]

Both are sustained by taxpayer money.There is no difference.

The farming industry is sustained through subsidies? That is pure bullshit. Prove it otherwise. I have been reducing your long winded replies into tiny little topics you can address but you have been unable to respond to all the facts that I have been posting that show you wrong.

Yes, show us how the farming industry is sustained through subsidies.

Ah the semantics game. Trump is giving farmers a $6 billion bailout so they can weather his trade war
Tell me exactly how this is NOT taxpayer money. Short enough for you?

 

[forkup]

Both are sustained by taxpayer money.There is no difference.

The farming industry is sustained through subsidies? That is pure bullshit. Prove it otherwise. I have been reducing your long winded replies into tiny little topics you can address but you have been unable to respond to all the facts that I have been posting that show you wrong.

Yes, show us how the farming industry is sustained through subsidies.

I'm stopping for today elektra, thank you for keeping the conversation civil. I might not agree, but I do enjoy having a conversation that stays semi on topic and doesn't devolve in a flaming contest. Sorry if it got a little bit testy towards the end.

 

[elektra]

The government didn't start solar cell producing plant, private industry did.

Lol you just did what you claimed I do. From the article.
Normally Sweden is a net exporter to the German market, but in recent weeks it has become a net importer,” said Tim Steinert at Berlin-based consultancy Enervis.*
And the reason why.
(Montel) Germany is exporting unusually large volumes of power to Scandinavia this summer as hot, dry weather reverses the typical flow of Nordic hydropower to Europe.
So, because of the fact that Sweden was having unusually hot weather they couldn't meet their energy needs, although usually they have a surplus.
Not exactly a good argument if you DON'T believe the world is getting hotter.[/QUOTE]
Your claim was that Solar is good, that Wind is good, yet they failed Sweden. Job growtj is poor. People are leaving the country. The economy is in bad shape and you think because Sweden normally exports power, and now that they cant, it supports your original statement? You contention was, going green is good for a country? Going green creates mire pollution and is very wasteful. Sweden does not export solar or wind power. Sweden is not an net exporter of green energy.

Sweden produces electricity from hydro and nuclear power. Over 90% from just these two sources.

 

[SSDD]

Here is a graphic representation of Earth climate change(global temperatures) for the past 2500 years

Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Note the wide variations in actual temperature that occurred even before 1760 when the Industrial Revolution began and coal came into widespread use as the first fossil fuel. Petroleum was first discovered in the USA in the mid 19th century.

This is why so many people question the idea that burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming. The Earth's temperature goes up and down all
by itself, even without us burning fossil fuels.

Sure, the thing is most of these events can be investigated and usually a cause or causes, since it's seldom a single thing that influences a change in climate, can be determined. Only the current determination by scientist isn't accepted by the politicians ( not scientists )in a single country. Even your article has this paragraph.
However, Mankind's activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the "Urban Heat Island Effect" are likely creating more harmful pollution. Yes, we believe we should be "going green" whenever and wherever possible.
So can I ask why you accept this graphical representation, but not one of their conclusions? Why you would accept the determination of science of previous climate trends, but not the current one?
At best you have provided SOME doubt about the cause of global warming.

In most cases, any explanation for why temperatures went up or down are mostly wild assed guesses.

You seem to be under the impression that we have a pretty good handle on every variable that causes the climate to change...how those variables cause change and how they interact with each other to cause change.

Alas, we are barely scratching the surface.

You ticked off a list of reasons you think are causing the climate to change. Now, can you provide a single piece of observed, measured data which supports your belief that we are causing the change and that we are no simply observing natural variability?

Just one.

 

[SSDD]

All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.

3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .

Got any observed measured evidence to support that claim? You are ticking off all these suppositions as if you believe, or have been told that we have the evidence to support them. We don't.

 

[SSDD]

All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.

3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .

3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .
You must know something nobody who has been working on climate models knows. They all have trouble predicting overcast. Naturally that problem does not even exist in a dumbed down pseudo reality like yours.
Increased moisture results in more cloud cover which reflects solar radiation.
3% more CO2 would blah blah blah which could blah blah blah....the seasonal cycle for CO2 is more than 3%, so what does that do? Show me an infrared absorption spectrum for X ppm CO2 and another for X-3% and do the math. Ah forget it, you would have no idea how and your only recourse is "every scientist says blah blah blah" like all the other dimwits who believe in this so called science.

I was pointing out that thinking of climate change simply in terms of the amount of CO2 we pump in the atmosphere without taking into the account the consequences of us doing that in the larger context of climate as a whole is an oversimplification. I don't need to be a scientist myself to realize it's way more complex then that. You even admit that actual people who are trained to know have trouble with it. Simply put, increase in global temperature has been widely predicted to put more moisture ( water vapor) in the air, this in turn has led to the prediction of more extreme weather. It is by no means a new theory. I'm perfectly happy to say I'm not smart enough for that.
Increasingly severe hurricanes can have devastating effects to public health | UA
Rahmstorf explained that higher temperatures create a warmer atmosphere that naturally holds more water vapor. This, in turn, establishes conditions for increasing rainfall and more severe storms – especially hurricanes.
If you have information that this isn't happening I'm happy to discuss it.
Oh and what would it prove to show that different gases have different absorption rates for solar radiation, I wasn't aware anyone disputed that? So if we know that increases in temperature put more vapor in the air, and we know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Isn't the assertion that it works in a feedback loop not reasonable? Hell just type in water vapor greenhouse gas in google and they will give you this exact explanation.

The problem with that is that the weather is not more extreme...the coverage of weather events is much more extreme...and the hype is much more extreme...and the fakery regarding weather is much more extreme...the weather itself though...not so much.

 

[SSDD]

All of Humanity produces just %3 of all the CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 accounts for just %3 of the "Greenhouse Effect", water vapor is something along the lines of %95 if I recall.

So anyone who insists we need to bankrupt the US and shut down all industry, destroy all our internal combustion engines and stop eating beef can't go far away enough, or fuck themselves hard enough when they get there to satisfy me.

If after reading the first 2 lines of this post, which are FACTS about CO2 and "The Greenhouse Effect" (not positive on the water vapor), and you still conclude MMGW is anything other than a complete hoax to keep government dollars flowing into "research", you're freakishly stupid and dangerous to the rest of humanity.


.

3 percent CO2 would cause more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would heat it further. In other words, the effects of 3 percent CO2 extra , could result in a higher percentage of greenhouse gases beyond that original 3 percent .

And yet the observed evidence shows this is not happening.... You folks and your broken models..

http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/jnorris/files/caltechweb.pdf
Observed changes, not a model. It shows the amount of clouds has increased. It does NOT support the conclusion that it increases the temperature yet.

You don't seem to realize that the entire premise of that article is a model.

 

[SSDD]

The CO2/Temperature correlation over the 20th Century
The kind of graphical representations here are NOT disputed and show a good correlation between increases in CO2 levels and temperature. Furthermore even IF the case would be less clear, isn't it reasonable to assume the worst when talking about something that has severe consequences for the world and act accordingly?

The only actual correlation between temperature increase and CO2 in the long term is that CO2 increases after the temperature rises. That would be due to the fact that warmer oceans hold less CO2 than cold oceans.

According to NASA...between 1850 and 1910, the earth experienced a cooling of .1 degree while CO2 increased by 15ppm

Between 1910 and 1940 the earth experienced a warming of .45 degrees while CO2 increased by 11ppm

Between 1940 and 1970 the earth cooled by .1 degree while CO2 increased by 23ppm

Between 1977 and 2001 the earth warmed by .35 degree while CO2 increased by 37ppm

Between 2001 and 2014 the earth cooled by .04 degree while CO2 increased by 27ppm

sometimes an increase in CO2 accompanies warming...sometimes it accompanies cooling...clearly the change isn't the result of CO2. In fact, when the earth began descending into the ice age we are currently climbing out of, atmospheric CO2 was real close to 1000ppm.

The fact is that there is a real question as to whether we have any real impact on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We certainly don't produce enough of it to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

Munshi, 2015

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

clip:
“A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming isthat there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenicemissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

Flohn, 1982

https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

clip: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”
“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Humlum, et. al 2013

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

clip: “There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whetherrepresenting sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

And I could go on ad nauseum with paper after paper questioning whether we have any real influence on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It seems that claiming that we are causing massive increases in CO2 is one of those things that everyone seems to know, but the data, when actually looked at, doesn't seem to support.

 

[polarbear]

View attachment 217935View attachment 217935 Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
source is the Goddard institute.

That is not a temperature. a Temperature is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.
Post the temperatures, not the manipulated data propaganda. It is that easy, post the Temperature. Can you do that. No, you can not. But go ahead and try. You know nothing of what you speak and think you can google search your foot out of your mouth. I have been here before, I know what you will find and post. It will not be the temperatures for anything.

Same source.

Hahaha and posting a graph which starts out at 56 units on the Y axis so that a 1.8 deg F increment which is 1 degree Celsius can be blown up to look 56 * 1.8= 100.8 times larger proves the point ?
That is called a misleading graph in mathematics. If that graph were scaled to size starting at 0 C on the Y axis it would almost flat-line instead of showing a slope.
That`s why these kind of graphs are dead on arrival if you show them to a real scientist.

 

[Billy_Bob]

That's interesting!

`

CO2 measured over a volcano?

An dead Volcano in the middle of the ocean to avoid contamination by pollution.
The same reason Hawaii has Telescopic observatories.

Oh boy, another beauty here.

and the SAME numbers could be obtained/HAVE been obtained elsewhere.

The Rise is NOT a secret, and NOT disputed by deniers, except the hopeless dunderheads.
They just dispute it's effect.
`

No volcano is extinct... Only a fool believe's this..