Earth Emergency

[toobfreak]

Are you kidding?! Denying human caused global warming is about as far right wing as you can get. It isn't the poor with no money who do things like make television programs. It is the wealthy.

Whelp, Stimpeder, seeing how you did not copy me the post to whom you refer (I know, you are a noob), I really can't say to what you are referring! But if you want to claim that humans are causing or are the only cause to climate changing, which has been changing and has never stopped changing since the Earth HAD climate about 4.5 billion years ago, you would need some reference point to compare it to, which would have to be to REMOVE man from the system as the LONE VARIABLE and see just what the effects are.

That is REAL science, not some jackhole computer model written by people out to PROVE MMCC, then saying See! The only problem is that we have no way of removing man from the equation to test your theory to really know for sure. Meantime, reckless and savage cutting of energy or economic systems vital to society can be almost as much if not MORE dangerous. For now at least-- -- we NEED fossil fuels. No getting around that.

BUT THANKS FOR SAYING MY IDEA IS ABOUT AS FAR RIGHT AS ONE COULD GO. Only my mother has paid me a higher compliment.

Remind me to remember you on Earth Day.

As to your last comment about making TV shows, who knows WTF you were babbling about.

 

[Uncensored2008]

From 2019. Also California is an ideal place to have solar on your roof, and a couple Powerwalls on your garage wall. Then your EV has free fuel, no matter what the rest of the grid is doing.

Say sparky, doesn't a solar system with sufficient battery to run "off the grid" run north of $100,000?

Ah, but this is for the oligarchs, part of your plan is moving the bourgeoisie in to work camps and plantations.... Where they can be properly managed, herds thinned, etc.

 

[Uncensored2008]

While that is far more dire than what I expect from reading the articles published by the scientists involved in this kind of research, we are seeing results right now we did not expect to see until 2050.

Really, what "results" are those?

You insane cultists are something else.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I just had to say something about a load of crap PBS show I watched a few days ago. It was an episode called "Earth Emergency" on a program called NOVA. This program was about human caused global warming. In watching it I found out what the real emergency was. The unwillingness of the media to tell you the truth about things. In the program, the main think they brought up about a zillion times was a "feedback loop" in various aspects of human caused global warming. From what I remember, they never once said exactly what that meant. They used the word "reinforcement" quite often. But that was misleading. What a feedback loop really means is the warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer. I wonder if all the scientists they talked to were purposefully being misleading or if what they had to say was just edited to make it seem that way.

They even brought up the came old crap about what the Earth will be like in the year 2100. But because of the ever faster exponential nature of human caused global warming, it would be a miracle if there will be any humans in the year 2050. I was watching a program by Bill Nye called "Global Meltdown." In it he spoke to an ex college or university professor who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. His predictions were even more dire than mine. What he discovered caused him to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. Which he thought could happen in around 20 years.

In the program they also said that methane was about 25 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But that is in a 100 year time frame. Though methane has a half life of about 20 years. Which means that in about 20 years after it's release, half of it would have broken down into just plain old CO2. In a 20 year time span, methane is actually 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's bad news.

For the main polluters, the wealthy, they would most likely choose profits over the eventual death of most of the planet. And they are the ones who tell you how to think. Also, from what I have seen, most people have drank that Kool-Aid. But who knows. Maybe I can cause a stampede amongst the sheeple.

You can't take the AGW Cult serious when their main politicians buy ocean front property and refuse to chain themselves to the Chinese Embassy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Really, what "results" are those?

You insane cultists are something else.

They've been wrong about all prediction leading up to 2022, so why stop now?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That might work for Cali, that sure as hell isn't going to work for northern cities. It is winter now, and the sun in my part of the nation? We are lucky to see any at all, for days. . . we have more overcast weather than even Seattle because of the Great Lakes. You live in a fantasy world, you really, really do.

It only "works" for the elite in California.

That's the whole point. California is already third world. The obscenely rich and the abjectly poor, with very little in between.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

toobfreak

Are you kidding?! Denying human caused global warming is about as far right wing as you can get. It isn't the poor with no money who do things like make television programs. It is the wealthy.

The wealthy, like the AGW Cult leaders who buy ocean front property

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Snow will be a thing of the past by 2005
Snow will be a thing of the past by 2010
Snow will be a thing of the past by 2015
Snow will be a thing of the past by 2020

 

[Uncensored2008]

They've been wrong about all prediction leading up to 2022, so why stop now?

But the moron cultists claims "results."

I'd love to see them? No doubt he'll claim the Wuhan Designer Virus® (With generous funding by Anthony Fauci and the NIH) is PROOF of glowbull warming.

 

[sealybobo]

No, they aren't.

I think you are repeating a lie you heard if I'm not mistaking what you are saying

Fact check: False claim that Arctic, Antarctic ice reached record highs

Ice at both of Earth's poles is being lost due to global climate change. Neither pole experienced record-high levels of ice in 2021.

www.usatoday.com

Earth’s polar regions have lost enormous amounts of ice over the past few decades due to global climate change. However, some social media posts are claiming the opposite is true – that both Antarctic and Arctic ice have reached record levels.

“In 2014 Nasa said Ice was the largest ever recorded. Ice at the Antarctic has only grown since then,” reads a Dec. 2 Facebook post shared nearly 4,000 times in two weeks. "Meanwhile Arctic Ice Is reaching its highest point in 20 years."

The post includes a NASA image of Earth's poles, labeled with the year 2021. The Arctic pole is labeled “most ice in 20 years," while the Antarctic pole is labeled “most ice ever recorded.”

See? This is just like the movie Don't Look Up. All the evidence says the polar caps are melting or the comet is going to hit earth yet still so many deniers out there.

 

[sealybobo]

Snow will be a thing of the past by 2005
Snow will be a thing of the past by 2010
Snow will be a thing of the past by 2015
Snow will be a thing of the past by 2020

Humans will be a thing of the past by?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I just had to say something about a load of crap PBS show I watched a few days ago. It was an episode called "Earth Emergency" on a program called NOVA. This program was about human caused global warming. In watching it I found out what the real emergency was. The unwillingness of the media to tell you the truth about things. In the program, the main think they brought up about a zillion times was a "feedback loop" in various aspects of human caused global warming. From what I remember, they never once said exactly what that meant. They used the word "reinforcement" quite often. But that was misleading. What a feedback loop really means is the warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer. I wonder if all the scientists they talked to were purposefully being misleading or if what they had to say was just edited to make it seem that way.

They even brought up the came old crap about what the Earth will be like in the year 2100. But because of the ever faster exponential nature of human caused global warming, it would be a miracle if there will be any humans in the year 2050. I was watching a program by Bill Nye called "Global Meltdown." In it he spoke to an ex college or university professor who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. His predictions were even more dire than mine. What he discovered caused him to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. Which he thought could happen in around 20 years.

In the program they also said that methane was about 25 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But that is in a 100 year time frame. Though methane has a half life of about 20 years. Which means that in about 20 years after it's release, half of it would have broken down into just plain old CO2. In a 20 year time span, methane is actually 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's bad news.

For the main polluters, the wealthy, they would most likely choose profits over the eventual death of most of the planet. And they are the ones who tell you how to think. Also, from what I have seen, most people have drank that Kool-Aid. But who knows. Maybe I can cause a stampede amongst the sheeple.

You didn't post a link to anything thus your post is properly called a RANT.

Will address a bit of your meandering babble, more later:

Stampeder,

"What a feedback loop really means is the warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer. I wonder if all the scientists they talked to were purposefully being misleading or if what they had to say was just edited to make it seem that way."

My reply,

The Positive Feedback Loop is the second part of the AGW hypothesis, which is all based on modeling constructs, after 30 years of this we see no evidence of it occurring which of course why there is no current warming and no indication of accelerated warming just accelerated lying and fearmongering a sign mental illness as there is no data to support it.

Stampeder drones on,

"In the program they also said that methane was about 25 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But that is in a 100 year time frame. Though methane has a half life of about 20 years. Which means that in about 20 years after it's release, half of it would have broken down into just plain old CO2. In a 20 year time span, methane is actually 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's bad news."

My reply,

Methane as a GHG with a tiny warm forcing effect far less than the already very small warm forcing effect of CO2 it is why CH4 is barely mentioned by even warmist/alarmists as they KNOW it contributes negligible to the "heat budget"

This 25- or 85-time GHG potency is irrelevant as it contributes so little in the first place, but you fell for this nonsense because you are ignorant of the "heat" budget that shows it less than 1% of the Trenberth published heat budget calculations.

cFact

From Methane Madness

Excerpt:

Many scary claims are made that methane is even more potent than CO2 and thus should be controlled as much as CO2. But here is a simple fact. Yes, methane is about 85 times more powerful than CO2 on a molecule-by-molecule basis. Still, methane’s importance is greatly diminished because there is so little CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is even less. Look at how little CO2 and methane are actually in the atmosphere: Nitrogen, Oxygen, and other gases make up 99.96%. CO2 comes in at a puny 0.04% and methane at 0.0002%, practically zero. So now the question is, how does that contextually compare to the Earth’s total radiative forcing effect?

From Figure 1v, we see 1.8 Watts/m2 for CO2 and methane by 0.6 w/m2. For a benchmark contextual comparison, the combined radiative forcing of CO2 and methane is barely 0.5% of the Earth’s solar energy budget of 340 W/m2. And of which the human-made portion of this CO2 radiative forcing increase is a miserly 0.008% and methane a laughable 0.005% of the Sun’s total radiative forcing budget.

In Figure 1,vi we saw that both methane and CO2 are logarithmic functions, meaning as the volumes keep increasing, the incrementally added energy diminishes, eventually reaching their asymptotic limits

LINK

Stop ignoring the dominant Water Vapor effect that is around 95% of the total GHG effect!

 

[abu afak]

...My reply, The Positive Feedback Loop is the second part of the AGW hypothesis, which is all based on modeling constructs, after 30 years of this we see No evidence of it occurring which of course why there is No Current Warming and no Indication of Accelerated Warming just accelerated lying and fearmongering a sign mental illness as there is no data to support it....

Really?

The past Seven years have been the Hottest in recorded history, new data shows​

Global temperatures in 2021 were among the highest ever observed, with 25 countries setting new annual records, according to scientists from NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth​

January 13, 2022 - Washington Post

In the middle of a historically sweltering summer, a NASA researcher stood before Congress and declared the unvarnished, undeniable scientific truth: “The greenhouse effect has been detected,” James Hansen said. “And it is changing our climate now.”

The year was 1988. Global temperatures were about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. It was, at the time, the hottest 12-month period scientists had ever seen.

None of us will ever experience a year that cool again.
[......]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/

`

 

[Sunsettommy]

Really?

The past Seven years have been the Hottest in recorded history, new data shows​

Global temperatures in 2021 were among the highest ever observed, with 25 countries setting new annual records, according to scientists from NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth​

January 13, 2022 - Washington Post

In the middle of a historically sweltering summer, a NASA researcher stood before Congress and declared the unvarnished, undeniable scientific truth: “The greenhouse effect has been detected,” James Hansen said. “And it is changing our climate now.”

The year was 1988. Global temperatures were about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average. It was, at the time, the hottest 12-month period scientists had ever seen.

None of us will ever experience a year that cool again.
[......]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/01/13/global-temperature-record-climate-change/

`

LOL, you disagreed with NOAA in the other thread, how stupid can you be?

The NOAA shows a COOLING trend since 2015:

Warmists/alarmists love to be irrationally pessimistic but sadly for them it has been COOLING for years now as shown by the NOAA:

Global Ocean: January 2015-2021

-.11C /Decade

Global Land: January 2015-2021

-.04C/Decade

Combined it is:

.09C/Decade

=====

PISS shows a slight COOLING trend since July 2014:

LINK

===

Best says it has been COOLING since July 2014:

LINK

=====

You failed yet again, you are TERRIBLE at this.

 

[abu afak]

LOL, you disagreed with NOAA in the other thread, how stupid can you be?

The NOAA shows a COOLING trend since 2015:

Warmists/alarmists love to be irrationally pessimistic but sadly for them it has been COOLING for years now as shown by the NOAA:

Global Ocean: January 2015-2021

-.11C /Decade

Global Land: January 2015-2021

-.04C/Decade

Combined it is:

.09C/Decade

=====

PISS shows a slight COOLING trend since July 2014:

View attachment 592368

LINK

===

Best says it has been COOLING since July 2014:

View attachment 592369

LINK

=====

You failed yet again, you are TERRIBLE at this.

So you're saying Washington Post is Lying citing NASA and NOAA?

That's odd because we had this discussion three years ago and you got your Cherry popped.

Climate Deniers: Still 'Going Down the Up Escalator'

You lost and eventually STFU then too.

Since, 2020 was tied or the second Warmest year after 2016. Some of the intervening years were the height of a solar minimum, but nonetheless very warm.
That's what interrupts the graph and 'cooled' it off only a bit since 2016.
But it's rising with 2020 second warmest/near tied with 2016.

so of course you're Disingenuously using one of those peak years for you "going down the Up escalator" short graph vs a 70 year, 50 year, 20 year, and 10 year, UPtrend.
2020 was Second warmest/near tied with 2016, 2019 3rd.
I wouldn't call that "Cooling."
Real NOAA emblem graph, not cherry picked for land or ocean etc and not Picked off WTFisup withThat and called 'NOAA.'

`

 

[Captain Caveman]

I think you are repeating a lie you heard if I'm not mistaking what you are saying

Fact check: False claim that Arctic, Antarctic ice reached record highs

Ice at both of Earth's poles is being lost due to global climate change. Neither pole experienced record-high levels of ice in 2021.

www.usatoday.com

Earth’s polar regions have lost enormous amounts of ice over the past few decades due to global climate change. However, some social media posts are claiming the opposite is true – that both Antarctic and Arctic ice have reached record levels.

“In 2014 Nasa said Ice was the largest ever recorded. Ice at the Antarctic has only grown since then,” reads a Dec. 2 Facebook post shared nearly 4,000 times in two weeks. "Meanwhile Arctic Ice Is reaching its highest point in 20 years."

The post includes a NASA image of Earth's poles, labeled with the year 2021. The Arctic pole is labeled “most ice in 20 years," while the Antarctic pole is labeled “most ice ever recorded.”

See? This is just like the movie Don't Look Up. All the evidence says the polar caps are melting or the comet is going to hit earth yet still so many deniers out there.

So as ice melts and the oceans receive more water, sea levels can rise. So in the articles you've read and maybe some climate models, how did they include and consider glacial isostatic rebound? Do you know which countries are rising, and at what rate?

 

[Captain Caveman]

I just had to say something about a load of crap PBS show I watched a few days ago. It was an episode called "Earth Emergency" on a program called NOVA. This program was about human caused global warming. In watching it I found out what the real emergency was. The unwillingness of the media to tell you the truth about things. In the program, the main think they brought up about a zillion times was a "feedback loop" in various aspects of human caused global warming. From what I remember, they never once said exactly what that meant. They used the word "reinforcement" quite often. But that was misleading. What a feedback loop really means is the warmer it gets, the faster it will get even warmer. I wonder if all the scientists they talked to were purposefully being misleading or if what they had to say was just edited to make it seem that way.

They even brought up the came old crap about what the Earth will be like in the year 2100. But because of the ever faster exponential nature of human caused global warming, it would be a miracle if there will be any humans in the year 2050. I was watching a program by Bill Nye called "Global Meltdown." In it he spoke to an ex college or university professor who had been studying the problem for about 15 years. His predictions were even more dire than mine. What he discovered caused him to quit his tenured professorship and start preparing for doomsday. Which he thought could happen in around 20 years.

In the program they also said that methane was about 25 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. But that is in a 100 year time frame. Though methane has a half life of about 20 years. Which means that in about 20 years after it's release, half of it would have broken down into just plain old CO2. In a 20 year time span, methane is actually 86 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2. That's bad news.

For the main polluters, the wealthy, they would most likely choose profits over the eventual death of most of the planet. And they are the ones who tell you how to think. Also, from what I have seen, most people have drank that Kool-Aid. But who knows. Maybe I can cause a stampede amongst the sheeple.

No humans by 2050?? Do some believe that??

 

[abu afak]

LOL, you disagreed with NOAA in the other thread, how stupid can you be?

The NOAA shows a COOLING trend since 2015:

Warmists/alarmists love to be irrationally pessimistic but sadly for them it has been COOLING for years now as shown by the NOAA:

Global Ocean: January 2015-2021

-.11C /Decade

Global Land: January 2015-2021

-.04C/Decade

Combined it is:

.09C/Decade

=====

PISS shows a slight COOLING trend since July 2014:

View attachment 592368

LINK

===

Best says it has been COOLING since July 2014:

View attachment 592369

LINK

=====

You failed yet again, you are TERRIBLE at this.

#2 From NOAA LINK: More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon

Anyone think this is "Cooling?"

And of course all the previous years generally rising and also in the 21st Century with the exception of 1998.

You can't debate me!!
You just cherry pick denier blogs and I cite NOAA Directly with Links.
That's ALL you do.
Repost denier Blog cherry-picking.
In this case (as usual) "Going down the up escalator" again by starting with a very high year and looking down/or across at what is a very well defined larger uptrend.

`


`

 

[abu afak]

LOL, you disagreed with NOAA in the other thread, how stupid can you be?

The NOAA shows a COOLING trend since 2015:

Warmists/alarmists love to be irrationally pessimistic but sadly for them it has been COOLING for years now as shown by the NOAA:

Global Ocean: January 2015-2021

-.11C /Decade

Global Land: January 2015-2021

-.04C/Decade

Combined it is:

.09C/Decade

=====

PISS shows a slight COOLING trend since July 2014:

View attachment 592368

LINK

===

Best says it has been COOLING since July 2014:

View attachment 592369

LINK

=====

You failed yet again, you are TERRIBLE at this.

#2 From NOAA LINK: More Near-Record Warm Years Are Likely On Horizon

Anyone think this is "Cooling?"

View attachment 592390
And of course all the previous years generally rising and also in the 21st Century with the exception of 1998.

You can't debate me!!
You just cherry pick denier blogs and I cite NOAA Directly with Links.
That's ALL you do.
Repost denier Blog cherry-picking.
In this case (as usual) "Going down the up escalator" again by starting with a very high year and looking down/or across at what is a very well defined larger uptrend.

`

 

[skookerasbil]

Don't take the fact that I think you are a dumb fuck personally. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Against that we have one line trolls on internet message boards. Oh, who to believe?

But nobody cares about the university policy statements.

Energy policy-makers in the western world could not possibly be any less interested.

In other words, the science isn't mattering.

It's the ONLY thing that matters.

@www.whosnotwinning.com