Green New Deal

[iceberg]

no. you just pretend the entire right does that.

Well, when they’re not attending rallies to Trump MAGA stupidity.

SMIRK

LOLOL

SMIRK - LOLZ FAUX NEWS GIGGLE...

you're going to love being 12. what's that, in 3 years?

 

[karpenter]

Goggle it. You won’t find it on Breitbart or Fox gnus.

7-8 Degree Climate Average
We're All Extinct
At Current Rate, That's Hundreds Of Years Down The Road
Some Fantasy Models Use 15 Degree Avg Rise
That's Talking Millenia After We've All Died Out
AOC Uses The UN Declaration
12yrs Before The Big Spaz-Out

I'm Going To Go Out On A Limb Here
I Say:
In 12yrs Polar Bears Will Still Be Eating Seals And Caribou
And You'll Still Be Kicking Back On Game Day
Watching TV Eating Nachos

May The Farce Be With You

 

[Flopper]

How many Republicans will vote to condemn future generations to the effects of unfettered global warming.

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too ******* stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

 

[FA_Q2]

IF the data was sketchy at the turn of the century, only 20 years ago, how do you have anything accurate to compare today's "accurate data"?

Twenty years, less than a heartbeat in the history of the earth. Let's see, what part of 6+ billion years is 20 years?

There are far more government agencies, universities, and private research institutes gather data today and there is much more research being done collecting historical data.

It's not just about collecting data. Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

What percentage of our total atmosphere is CO2?

What percentage of that CO2 is affected by man?

CO2 is a very small percent of our atmosphere. I think it's about .04% if I remember correctly. It is natural to assume that a gas with such as small concentration could not possibly effect the temperature of the earth but it does and here's why. 99% of the atmosphere is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These gases pass both visible light and infrared without reflecting it back to earth.

That 1% of atmosphere contains neon, helium, methane, krypton hydrogen, and water vapor in addition to c02. There are of course other gases in minute mounts. The three main greenhouse gases are water vapor, co2, and methane. Without them the earth would be much colder because less heat would be reflected back to earth. As long the average concentration of greenhouses gases are stable over time, their contribution to atmospheric temperature change is minimal. However, when their concentration rises as it has been for many years we start seeing the average temperature of the atmosphere rise which we have been seeing for some time.
It's explained better in the following link.
If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

It's a rather simplistic take on the situation. In addition, this author appears to make some rather bold assumptions.and claims. For instance,

"the total heating produced by the increases of all long-lived greenhouse gases (excluding water" vapor) since preindustrial times is equal to about 1 percent of all solar radiation absorbed at the surface."

I'd be interested to see how they came to that conclusion.

Another,

"the ice ages during the last several million years--and the warmer periods in between--appear to have been triggered by no more than a different seasonal and latitudinal distribution of the solar energy absorbed by the Earth"

I would venture he's rather alone on this view as everyone I've heard speak on the subject has flatly stated that we have no idea of what caused the ice ages. There is much conjecture and speculation.

I also find it interesting that they make the point to "exclude water vapor". Even the most strident global warming advocates have admitted long ago that GHGs cannot have the effect which was originally claimed. The models rely on the water vapor feedback to attain the warming. I've yet to hear anyone claim that said feedback can be measured or observed for that matter.

In addition, there are others who point out that increased water vapor would likely lead to increased cloud cover. Clouds are efficient at trapping heat, they are also very good at reflecting sunlight.

However, none of this speaks to the main issue. How much warming can be expected from a doubling of CO2. The estimates vary wildly. I've seen estimates from ranging from .4 to 10 deg. All from "scholarly" sources. James Hansen in 1988 estimated the US would see a 4 C rise by 2020. How's that going?

I've listened to people that can name hundreds of factors that could likely influence climate. The models I've seen described use at most 10 or 12.

Just one time I'd like the warmists admit that they truly do not know.

As has been said many times it is not an exact science. While the world's scientific community may argue over how many degrees and how fast, the vast majority do agree the planet is warming and humans are a major cause. The disagreement between scientists over how much and when creates just enough doubt for people to say maybe we should wait until we know for sure.

I heard someone say once, suppose all the scientists got it wrong and we eliminated most fossil fuel usage, would the world be a better place?

If we do it through force of law and at the cost of our economy - no we would be way worse off. If the scientists are correct? Then, if we do it through force of law and at the cost of our economy - no we would be way worse off.

If we use our economy to advance technology to the point that we can begin to replace those fuels with better alternatives then, yes, we will be way better off.

 

[FA_Q2]

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too ******* stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

 

[Markle]

CO2 is a very small percent of our atmosphere. I think it's about .04% if I remember correctly. It is natural to assume that a gas with such as small concentration could not possibly effect the temperature of the earth but it does and here's why. 99% of the atmosphere is made of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon. These gases pass both visible light and infrared without reflecting it back to earth.

That 1% of atmosphere contains neon, helium, methane, krypton hydrogen, and water vapor in addition to c02. There are of course other gases in minute mounts. The three main greenhouse gases are water vapor, co2, and methane. Without them the earth would be much colder because less heat would be reflected back to earth. As long the average concentration of greenhouses gases are stable over time, their contribution to atmospheric temperature change is minimal. However, when their concentration rises as it has been for many years we start seeing the average temperature of the atmosphere rise which we have been seeing for some time.
It's explained better in the following link.
If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?

I also asked what part of the CO2 emissions are caused by man. I'll add another one you won't answer. What part of those emissions by man originates in the United States?

According to NASA, the gases in Earth's atmosphere include:

• Nitrogen — 78 percent.
• Oxygen — 21 percent.
• Argon — 0.93 percent.
• Carbon dioxide — 0.04 percent.
• Trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, krypton, and hydrogen, as well as water vapor.

Earth's Atmosphere: Composition, Climate & Weather

 

[Flopper]

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too ******* stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

When we have a solid, rational plan of action which will produce serious gains without causing widespread suffering would be my vote.

Or is this the wrong crowd for logic and non-panicked pragmatism?

 

[FA_Q2]

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

We act right now with investments in technology - something that we should be dong if AGW is a complete myth as well. That is how we address major problems: study, research and then use technological advancements to address major problems. What we are doing instead is forcing technology that is not prepared to fill the role we need it to and coming up with measures that move wealth without addressing the actual problem (such as a carbon tax).

Cash for clunkers, silly regulation on light bulbs and tax credits for a new water heater do NOTHING to help the environment yet every proposal seems to follow this line of thought. Those are power grabs, not sound environmental investment. The falling sky attitude is not helping either.

 

[FA_Q2]

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

When we have a solid, rational plan of action which will produce serious gains without causing widespread suffering would be my vote.

Or is this the wrong crowd for logic and non-panicked pragmatism?

More concise than I put it.

Basically this Flopper - how about an actual plan rather than the piecemeal feel good measures that are discussed now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

Haven't we acted enough already?

If somebody is to act, it isn't us. Talk to the people in India or China. When they catch up to us, then it's time to talk.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

When we have a solid, rational plan of action which will produce serious gains without causing widespread suffering would be my vote.

Or is this the wrong crowd for logic and non-panicked pragmatism?

More concise than I put it.

Basically this Flopper - how about an actual plan rather than the piecemeal feel good measures that are discussed now.

If we're doing something just to be doing something because, "MY GOD!!!! We're all gonna die in ten years!!!! Do anything!!!", the answer is no.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

When we have a solid, rational plan of action which will produce serious gains without causing widespread suffering would be my vote.

Or is this the wrong crowd for logic and non-panicked pragmatism?

Well.........we do have only 12 years to do it you know.....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

When we have a solid, rational plan of action which will produce serious gains without causing widespread suffering would be my vote.

Or is this the wrong crowd for logic and non-panicked pragmatism?

Well.........we do have only 12 years to do it you know.....

Sorry, my Chicken Little suit is at the cleaners, and I had a big lunch anyway, so I'll have to get back to you on panicking a little later.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too ******* stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

So the answer is to throw trillions of dollars into something that will likely not change anything. Sorry, but I think we could use those trillions for better things.

 

[FA_Q2]

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

When we have a solid, rational plan of action which will produce serious gains without causing widespread suffering would be my vote.

Or is this the wrong crowd for logic and non-panicked pragmatism?

More concise than I put it.

Basically this Flopper - how about an actual plan rather than the piecemeal feel good measures that are discussed now.

If we're doing something just to be doing something because, "MY GOD!!!! We're all gonna die in ten years!!!! Do anything!!!", the answer is no.

This seems to be the general reaction our government has to anything unfortunately. Do something so that they can say to their voters something was done even if it has literally zero impact on the 'problem.'

For minor issues this is annoying, counter productive and hugely inefficient - especially in the long run. For major issues like healthcare and the entire economy (which 'green' measure effect the entire economy) it can be absolutely fatal.

 

[Markle]

Future generations? You know....I always think about that. In about 100 years or so from now, I see a classroom of children. The teacher explains to them that 100 years ago, man thought he could actually control the climate, and the children breakout in laughter like we did when our teachers told us that one time, man thought the earth was flat, and if we walk too far, we simply fall off.

These predictions you speak of didn't start last week. Man has been making predictions about our weather (climate) for decades, and they've mostly been wrong. The reason is we simply don't know enough about it yet. Every GW product you leftist point to came from this earth. We didn't bring them in from another planet. Does it make any sense that God would create a planet with elements that man could use to destroy it?

100 years from now, teachers will explain how a bunch of really stupid people blocked action to make their lives easier because they were too ******* stupid to believe the scientists.

Seas are rising, they are causing problems in many of our cities,

Temps are going up.

But hey, you sit on your stupid fat ass & do nothing.

Is that what you think? How about an experiment? Tonight, take a glass of water, put two or three ice cubes in that water, and mark the level. Tomorrow when the ice cubes melt, check where that water level is. It's still the same.

Sea levels may rise, and they will fall again. There is no consistency with this global warming (climate) thing. Some years we will be warmer; even up to a hundred years or so. Then it will get cooler, perhaps the same amount of time.

This planet is nearly 4.5 billion years old. To measure 1,000 years of temperatures in comparison is like measuring twenty minutes of a day to determine if it's getting warmer or not.

In natural science there is rarely any natural progression.

So in order to predict that the snow is going melt tomorrow we need a thousand years of temperature data? The projections of global climate change is not based on a single set of data. When the atmospheric carbon dioxide which has never been above 300 ppm in a half million years changes from 160ppm to 400pm, in the last 60 years that certainly is a red flag for increasing global temperatures since increases in C02 level have been correlated with average yearly atmospheric temperature rises. And then there is supporting evidence of climate change such as changes in sea level, changes in sea temperature, melting glaciers, and changes in ecosystem. I suppose we could call all this totally unrelated and just coincidental but if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I think one of next confirmations of global climate change is going to be extremes in weather phenomenon which seem be starting.

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

Wow. Mr Scientist Truck Driver telling climatologists how to study science.

I'm met a lot of truck drivers over the years. A truck driver was my best riding buddy for many years. Frankly, every truck driver I have ever met has far more common sense than all the scientists I have met put together. It has seemed to me that the more degrees, the less common sense.

Other than the money being thrown down the drain, Ray from Cleveland doesn't have a dog in the fight about Global Warming. Every scientist commenting on it does have a dog in the fight. If they admit that there is little or nothing we can do to change the CO2 output, they have no income. The grants disappear and they have to find a new cause.

 

[Markle]

Hey, at least I don’t spend my “executive time”
setting in front of the Tv watching FOX News and stuffing my jaws with quarter pounders like your president.

 

[Markle]

As has been said many times it is not an exact science. While the world's scientific community may argue over how many degrees and how fast, the vast majority do agree the planet is warming and humans are a major cause. The disagreement between scientists over how much and when creates just enough doubt for people to say maybe we should wait until we know for sure.

I heard someone say once, suppose all the scientists got it wrong and we eliminated most fossil fuel usage, would the world be a better place?

Please show us the percentage of CO2, going into our atmosphere is caused by man.

No, if we eliminated "most fossil fuel usage" the world would NOT be a better place. We could not compete with the rest of the world and we would be taken, one way or another by China. See the disaster happening in Germany.

Need I go further?

 

[Flopper]

Yeah, I know.....been starting for nearly 50 years now.

In order to say X causes Y, you would need two planets exactly alike. One you use fossils fuels and the other not. Even then, it's really impossible to tell if one has an effect or not because weather and climate change on their own; always has and always will. Predicting what's going to happen with either is like trying to predict if a newborn baby is going to be straight, gay or transgender. There is simply nothing that can guarantee it.

You're right, there is no guarantee of sexual preference, climate change, or just about anything else. When we set off the first atomic bomb many scientist feared a chain reaction would destroyed all life on earth. When JFK blockaded Cuba, there was no guarantee that the Russians would back down. When the American colonist declared independence, England could have certainly smashed the rebellion by diverting it's forces in Europe to the America. There are no guarantees.

There are, however, likelihoods. Right now, we have no idea what the likely outcome or what the long term temperature growth will do. We have a really hard time accounting for something as simple as clout cover because the dual purpose that clouds have in GW - the both add to GW AND take away but the aggregate is not known when temps increase.

We do not know what the effects are going to be.

Assuming the current trend of rising temperatures of the planet continue, at what point do we act?

When we have a solid, rational plan of action which will produce serious gains without causing widespread suffering would be my vote.

Or is this the wrong crowd for logic and non-panicked pragmatism?

More concise than I put it.

Basically this Flopper - how about an actual plan rather than the piecemeal feel good measures that are discussed now.

I can't believe there will ever be an actual plan, just goal setting documents that make people feel like they are actually doing something, like this New Green Deal and the Paris Accords. Humans respond to disasters and they are pretty good at planning for disasters that are likely to occur in their lifetime, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. However, expecting people to expend huge amounts of resources to prevent climate change which isn't likely to have any major effect on them and maybe not even their children or grandchildren is wishful thinking.

We respond to disasters but adapt to changes. That's basic to human psychology. When the Cod leave the North Atlantic for the Arctic, people will adapt with changes in food source. When rising temperatures in the plain states, make growing of wheat impossible, people will adapt by growing vegetables and fruit. And when the southwest becomes too hot, people will move north. And when the seas rise on our coasts, people will move inland. And when the last vestiges of human life in Antarctica can no longer survive, people will prepare for the end.