Global warming is speeding up.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Remember at least that waste paper, in the form of junk mail ads, which you rake out of your mailboxes every day, do you feel sorry for the trees that were killed for this?

Junk mail sequesters CO2. We need more of it to slow global warming.

 

[Captain Caveman]

100 years ago? Not 300 years ago? Or 700 years ago?

In the grand scheme of things, 100, 300, 700 or 100,000 years in geological time is like a tiny pimple on your bottom. That's the problem with this manmade climate change, everything is compared to 150 years and not to millions and billions.

 

[westwall]

If you think that there are no classes under capitalism, you are either a fool or a scoundrel, who is personally interested in the continuation of the existence of usurious capitalism. Maybe you are both cases.

No, dumbass, there is a third class. The middle one. Only murderous scum, like you, demand a ruling class and slavery for the rest.

 

[Leo123]

Leo123

So you make $150 to $250 an hour. If you don't mind my asking, how. I'm just wondering if you do it through wage slavery.

I resent your 'wage slavery' narrative in the first place. I own my own business and those figures are extrapolated because you were talking hourly wages. What do YOU do, if you don't mind me asking.

 

[Leo123]

frigidweirdo

Well the biggest problem our planet faces is overpopulation. No doubt addressing that problem would lead to a swift banning. Which brings up another question. One that I don't expect an answer to. And if I get one, I doubt if it would be truthful. Who owns this forum. Who owns any of the major political forums out there. Some corporation? The NSA? The CIA? The mossad? You know, those who have a vested interest in keeping Americans stupid and preserving the status quo.

In America, human replacement is at an all time low.

 

[Ringo]

Only murderous scum, like you, demand a ruling class and slavery for the rest.

No, just a nuthouse for s quirts like you

 

[westwall]

No, just a nuthouse for s quirts like you

My goal is for humans to be free. You demand they be serfs. I know who the fascist is, and it ain't me. You dumbass..

 

[ding]

if the gentlemen who dream of the return of "good old capitalism with" free and fair " competition really wanted to fight climate change, they would first of all abolish capitalism, in which a wild amount of resources is diverted to parasitic consumption and the whims of the bourgeois, and the distribution of resources in material production is idiotic
A similar product is "conceived" and produced by hundreds of enterprises, of which 90% are unprofitable in the process and burn up, heating the atmosphere. Remember at least that waste paper, in the form of junk mail ads, which you rake out of your mailboxes every day, do you feel sorry for the trees that were killed for this?

Would you like for government to regulate all facets of our daily lives?

 

[westwall]

Would you like for government to regulate all facets of our daily lives?

Yes, they would. Fascists are like that.

 

[ding]

Capitalism.

Evolution

 

[ding]

frigidweirdo

Well the biggest problem our planet faces is overpopulation. No doubt addressing that problem would lead to a swift banning. Which brings up another question. One that I don't expect an answer to. And if I get one, I doubt if it would be truthful. Who owns this forum. Who owns any of the major political forums out there. Some corporation? The NSA? The CIA? The mossad? You know, those who have a vested interest in keeping Americans stupid and preserving the status quo.

Don’t you believe nature is capable of correcting itself?

The answer to your question is that this is a highly complex emergent and adaptive system. There is no single controlling entity. The emergent and adaptive system evolves on its own through a conflict and confusion process which is self compensating in nature. It evolves through fits and starts and very much imitates the technology cycle whereby a practically complete idea bursts upon the scene and rapidity inflates until it settles into an equilibrium phase where slight differences compete to produce the next inflationary cycle. Long periods of boredom followed by short periods of intense change.

 

[Ringo]

Evolution

Would you like for government to regulate all facets of our daily lives?

Is this what they taught you in the anti-communist madrasah? That communism regulates everything in your life?

 

[ding]

Is this what they taught you in the anti-communist madrasah? That communism regulates everything in your life?

Doesn’t matter what I was taught. It was a direct question to you.

so should I assume your answer is no?

 

[Crick]

I saw some climate scientist saying this on the news last night. That the earth is not just getting warmer, but the rate at which it is getting warmer is accelerating. Though this isn't news to me. The only question is how bad will things get before people start doing something about it. I am reminded of a lyric by Janis Joplin. "Freedom's (survival) just another word for nothing left to lose." I wouldn't expect our corporate government to do much. I also saw on the news last night that Biden signed some mandate or something saying that by the year 2050, all cars are going to have to be electric. But the way things are looking, it is doubtful there will be any people around to drive them. And they're supposed to have all electric cars in the U.S. But what about the rest of the increasingly overpopulating and "migrating" world.

Any action in the right direction helps. There will always be the argument as to whether it is enough or too much, though history on this topic has clearly shown that in almost every instance, mitigation efforts have been abysmally inadequate. We should have started work to eliminate fossil fuel power and ICE transportation right after World War II. But the only point in reviewing the errors of the past is to see what needs doing now.

Do not make the mistake of some posters here to think that because overpopulation is a root cause to global warming, that we should work on it and NOT work on global warming. That is a false dichotomy: an unwarranted elimination of alternatives. We can and should work on both - and other problems as well. Their is no need for exclusivity. The two efforts do not share any limited resource. There is no conflict.

 

[ReinyDays]

Any action in the right direction helps. There will always be the argument as to whether it is enough or too much, though history on this topic has clearly shown that in almost every instance, mitigation efforts have been abysmally inadequate. We should have started work to eliminate fossil fuel power and ICE transportation right after World War II. But the only point in reviewing the errors of the past is to see what needs doing now.

Do not make the mistake of some posters here to think that because overpopulation is a root cause to global warming, that we should work on it and NOT work on global warming. That is a false dichotomy: an unwarranted elimination of alternatives. We can and should work on both - and other problems as well. Their is no need for exclusivity. The two efforts do not share any limited resource. There is no conflict.

Hey Moron ... the internet is driven by fossil fuel generated electricity ... you should log off and disconnect ... and never use I-95, strictly US-1 for you ... no interstate freeways at all ...

Have you ditched your A/C yet? ... not once have I seen you recommend this ... total hypocrite ... you don't believe any of this catastrophic bullshit, just spouting vomit that you think makes you look smart ... 2ºC temperature increase over 100 years is trivial, temperatures go up that much in a hour or two just about every morning ... our great-great-great-grandchildren will not care ...

 

[Crick]

Hey Moron ... the internet is driven by fossil fuel generated electricity ... you should log off and disconnect ... and never use I-95, strictly US-1 for you ... no interstate freeways at all ...

Have you ditched your A/C yet? ... not once have I seen you recommend this ... total hypocrite ... you don't believe any of this catastrophic bullshit, just spouting vomit that you think makes you look smart ... 2ºC temperature increase over 100 years is trivial, temperatures go up that much in a hour or two just about every morning ... our great-great-great-grandchildren will not care ...

You have made claims in the past to have some knowledge of science in general, yet you continue to make ignorant comments such as these. The only thing evidenced by your observations here is that you seem to have nothing with which to make an actual argument against AGW.

Show us something besides anthropogenic greenhouse gases what could have caused the warming of the last 150 years.

Show us some evidence that the warming we have and will experience will not result in a massive net harm to humans.

 

[ReinyDays]

You have made claims in the past to have some knowledge of science in general, yet you continue to make ignorant comments such as these. The only thing evidenced by your observations here is that you seem to have nothing with which to make an actual argument against AGW.

Show us something besides anthropogenic greenhouse gases what could have caused the warming of the last 150 years.

Show us some evidence that the warming we have and will experience will not result in a massive net harm to humans.

With this then ... you fully admit you cannot back up your claim for AGW ... in philosophy you can ask me to disprove your claims, but in science it is for you to prove your claims ... which you can't ... thus you still run your A/C burning coal like it's harmless to the environment ... hypocrite ...

The argument against catastrophic AGW is quantum saturation ... CO2 will not do these things you claim it will do ... it never has in the past, pretty stupid to think it will in the future ... temperature is proportional to the logarithm of carbon dioxide concentration ... the more we add, the less effect is has on temperature ... simple radiative physics ...

Deforestation and other changes in land use will change the Earth's albedo ... just look at a full disk photo of Earth in visible light to see what I mean ... or go ahead and measure pixel by pixel like real scientists would ... there's causes for AGW that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases ... ha ha ... and how do greenhouse gases act in the upper half of the atmosphere? ... turns out the opposite of ho they act in the lower half ... balanced at 180 mb ... duh ...

Warmer temperatures mean longer growing season, more food production with the added rainfall, less starvation world-wide ... that's a massive benefit to humanity ... withholding electricity from the poorest 2 billion people is cruel and inhuman, yet you would disallow these poor folks diesel generators or coal plants ... people who cook all their meals over an open fire and have no refrigeration ... only a monster would deprive little children of these basic things, a monster who enjoys seeing these poor children suffer and toil ...

Bottom line is that Minneapolis will be seeing temperatures in 100 years that we see today in Des Monies ... ouch ... horror of horrors winter lows never reach -40ºC ... what will Minnesota do will all the money they save? ... because the problem compounds with all the extra money they earn from bigger crops ... horror of horrors that farmers will be planting in April instead of May ... harvesting in October instead of September ...

Temperatures were much warmer during the advent of agriculture ... evidence warmer is better for humans ... the harm you claim violates natural law ... less power in the atmosphere, thus fewer powerful weather events ... weaker hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, more rainfall more broadly dispersed ...

 

[Crick]

With this then ... you fully admit you cannot back up your claim for AGW ... in philosophy you can ask me to disprove your claims, but in science it is for you to prove your claims ... which you can't ... thus you still run your A/C burning coal like it's harmless to the environment ... hypocrite ...

I have admitted no such thing. If you want to see evidence for AGW, visit www.ipcc.ch and do some reading. Your comment: "...it is for you to prove your claims" is a clear indication that you are unfamiliar with the scientific method or even science in general. There are NO proofs in the natural sciences. There is evidence. And any hypocrisy on my part is absolutely irrelevant to the validity of AGW theory but, as I said, your comments are EVIDENCE that you don't seem to have anything to back up your claims.

The argument against catastrophic AGW is quantum saturation ... CO2 will not do these things you claim it will do ... it never has in the past, pretty stupid to think it will in the future ... temperature is proportional to the logarithm of carbon dioxide concentration ... the more we add, the less effect is has on temperature ... simple radiative physics ...

I know the error of the saturation argument has been explained to you before. Have you failed to understand it or do you reject it without examination? Let's try a basic approach. Infrared energy is radiated upward by the Earth's surface after warming from visible solar radiation. The CO2 within the first few tens of meters of atmosphere are sufficient to absorb all of that energy. Right? Now, what happens to that energy? It didn't disappear (neither energy nor mass can do that, you know). That energy is passed on in all directions by two processes: convection and radiation. That is, it is passed on via new infrared radiation and by movement of air and transfer through direct physical contact. This process will continue till the upper troposphere is reached at which point the role of convection will diminish due to thinning air and radiative transfer will become dominant. Finally, at the upper bound of the atmosphere, with vacuum above, radiative transfer is the sole means by which energy can move and it is the radiation from the outer layers of the atmosphere that absolutely control the energy balance of the planet.

The proportionality between CO2 concentration and temperature is indeed logarithmic. Unfortunately, the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere has been taking place at a logarithmic pace of a sufficient power to more than overcome the restraints of that relationship. CO2 is increasing quickly enough that temperature increases will ALSO be logarithmic. Upwards, of course. And even this ignores warming from recent greenhouse gas emissions that has not yet become discernible. That is, even if we zero'd all human CO2 emissions right now, temperature would continue to climb for many years. Neither saturation nor logarithmic T/CO2 relationships refute AGW.

Deforestation and other changes in land use will change the Earth's albedo ... just look at a full disk photo of Earth in visible light to see what I mean ... or go ahead and measure pixel by pixel like real scientists would ... there's causes for AGW that have nothing to do with greenhouse gases ... ha ha ... and how do greenhouse gases act in the upper half of the atmosphere? ... turns out the opposite of ho they act in the lower half ... balanced at 180 mb ... duh ...

Deforestation, besides changing albedo, reduces the biosphere's ability to fix CO2 in the soil. Surely you've seen the IPCC's forcing function graphic, this one from AR5.

Deforestation is included in the Land Use segment under Surface Albedo.

Warmer temperatures mean longer growing season, more food production with the added rainfall, less starvation world-wide ... that's a massive benefit to humanity ... withholding electricity from the poorest 2 billion people is cruel and inhuman, yet you would disallow these poor folks diesel generators or coal plants ... people who cook all their meals over an open fire and have no refrigeration ... only a monster would deprive little children of these basic things, a monster who enjoys seeing these poor children suffer and toil ...

Bottom line is that Minneapolis will be seeing temperatures in 100 years that we see today in Des Monies ... ouch ... horror of horrors winter lows never reach -40ºC ... what will Minnesota do will all the money they save? ... because the problem compounds with all the extra money they earn from bigger crops ... horror of horrors that farmers will be planting in April instead of May ... harvesting in October instead of September ...

Temperatures were much warmer during the advent of agriculture ... evidence warmer is better for humans ... the harm you claim violates natural law ... less power in the atmosphere, thus fewer powerful weather events ... weaker hurricanes, fewer tornadoes, more rainfall more broadly dispersed ...

If you think improved temperatures in northern latitudes will outpace crop loss in more equatorial latitudes, weather extremes, droughts, storm surge flooding from sea level rise and all the rest, you need to consider the geometry of a sphere. There is a great deal more, even potentially-arable, surface area between north and south 60 degrees latitude than between those 60 boundaries and the poles. And your return to pointless and absurd ad hominem simply indicates that, besides your inability to decide whether warming is or is not taking place, is or is not due to human emissions and is or is not harmul, that, once again, that you are running out of real arguments to make.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science is about SCIENCE. It is about facts, and empirical data, things that can be measured.

Computer derived fiction is FICTION. It isn't fact

You mean models. I know that, 30 years ago when you were allegedly in the field of geology, computing was not so good. But the science has long since passed you by. Thats why the USGS endorses the consensus, while old washed up geologists sit at home on the outside looking in.

But you make sure to sit there on your ass when a computer model tells us a hurricane is going to hit you. Stand by your horseshit. Crack a beer and sit on your porch like the fool you are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In the grand scheme of things, 100, 300, 700 or 100,000 years in geological time is like a tiny pimple on your bottom. That's the problem with this manmade climate change, everything is compared to 150 years and not to millions and billions.

Because humans only live 75 years. Its about the well being of the human race. And when you say dumb things like in your post, keep in mind that the scientists who discovered and taught you all of that are the ones sounding the alarm on climate change. So surely you can realize how stupid you sound to imply that they are laboring under the ignorance of their own life's work.