Satellite data show Earth's glaciers in massive decline

[Toddsterpatriot]

China has ( 1398/328 ~= ) 4.262 times more people than the us and China could dump ~4.262 times more COs emmissions into the air to equal per capita emmissions .

Rank	Country	CO2 emissions (total)
1	China	10.06GT
2	United States	5.41GT
3	India	2.65GT
4	Russian Federation	1.71GT
5	Japan	1.16GT

So with less than a quarter of the people, we in the U.S. manage to produce more than half as many emissions. We therefore produce more on an individual basis. We'll continue having no standing to criticize others until we can get our own house in order. India has nearly the same population as China yet produces less than half the emissions we do. Why does India make us both look like crap by either measure? Because India has never been as industrialized. Would you like them to be? Great Britain and Germany have been very industrial so why aren't they topping any lists? What's our excuse? Why have we let China lead the green tech revolution?

We therefore produce more on an individual basis. We'll continue having no standing to criticize others until we can get our own house in order.

Our output per capita is down more than 20% since 2000. Who has done better?

What has China done since 2000?

 

[ding]

That's all interesting stuff. But none of that has anything to do with current declines in glaciers around the world. Please try to stick to thread topics or simply start a new thread on the topic of your choice (within "Environment"

Meaning you can't explain why the temperature didn't rise to at least the predicted temperature of radiative forcing of CO2 let alone why there were no additional positive feedbacks?

This actually is relevant to the topic, dummy, as I am arguing that it shouldn't be a surprise that glaciers melt during an interglacial cycle. And since the temperature increase did not come close to the predicted temperature due to radiative forcing from CO2, then the temperature rise is from natural causes.

 

[Crick]

" Climate Change Wizard Clueless About A Ratio "

* Analysis On Stupid And The Planet Is Full *

CO2 in the atmosphere is not affected by transpiration. It is affected when we take carbon compounds out of the Earth and burn them, creating CO2 and putting it into the atmosphere. And why do you have no comment about China ranking so low on per capita emissions? Weren't you just telling us that China was the worst and deserved 100% of our efforts? You should try admitting you were wrong. It's good for the soul.

Do you have the slightest clue what a Ratio - Wikipedia is and how to calculate per capita emissions ?

Per Capita Emission = CO2 emissions of a country DIVIDED by population of a country .

China population 1.398 billion (2019)
US population 328.2 million (2019)

China has ( 1398/328 ~= ) 4.262 times more people than the us and China could dump ~4.262 times more COs emmissions into the air to equal per capita emissions of the us .

Is the entirety of the liberal arts majors of the left on board with such gawd awful ignorance that they believe shifting CO2 emissions to china based on per capita ratio makes any sense ?

The bid inn and the left are the long are of the ccp and the shifting of industry to china is all about dismantling us infrastructure and enabling chinese communist hegemony .

-- Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions --

Rank	Country	CO2 emissions (total)
1	China	10.06GT
2	United States	5.41GT
3	India	2.65GT
4	Russian Federation	1.71GT
5	Japan	1.16GT

Of course I know what per capita means. Do you not believe it relevant to this discussion?

 

[Likkmee]

Good! Who wants to live on a glacier?

GLM !

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More Schizoid Lunacy From Population Hoarding Climate Change Grant Writers "
|
* Those That Can Do And Tough Titty Conscripting Self Deprecation Of Lucrative Advantages *

So with less than a quarter of the people, we in the U.S. manage to produce more than half as many emissions. We therefore produce more on an individual basis. We'll continue having no standing to criticize others until we can get our own house in order. India has nearly the same population as China yet produces less than half the emissions we do. Why does India make us both look like crap by either measure? Because India has never been as industrialized. Would you like them to be? Great Britain and Germany have been very industrial so why aren't they topping any lists? What's our excuse? Why have we let China lead the green tech revolution?

A motivation to get rid of us industry that has competent purposes for competitive advantage as infrastructure or as domestic product , whether carbon dioxide is produced or not , to avoid consternation by some sanctimonious brow beaters hurling guilt trips of greedy gluttonous degenerates on us public , is absolute stupid fuckery ! ! !

The trump sought to assert state capitalism as a domestic economy more greatly directed by free enterprise , that also included tariffs and tax credits to retain and accrue competitive us domestic industry , which could include emphasis on a green technology revolution .

The trump did not seek to assert state capitalism as a domestic economy more greatly directed by bureaucrats , that also includes measures to alienate and deplete competitive domestic industry based on a climate change revolution .

Which policies of which party more closely parallel which economics system ?

Globalism Of Neoclassical Economics Versus Nationalism Of American School Of Economics

" Globalism Of Neoclassical Economics Versus Nationalism Of American School Of Economics " * Domestic Product Interests Are Not Nurtured But Contracted To The Lowest Global Bidder When Possible * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics Neoclassical economics uses the utility...

www.usmessageboard.com

* Most Industrialized Duh *

Gilded Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Gilded Age was a period of economic growth as the United States jumped to the lead in industrialization ahead of Britain. The nation was rapidly expanding its economy into new areas, especially heavy industry like factories, railroads, and coal mining.

Railroad track mileage tripled between 1860 and 1880, and then doubled again by 1920. The new track linked formerly isolated areas with larger markets and allowed for the rise of commercial farming, ranching, and mining, creating a truly national marketplace. American steel production rose to surpass the combined totals of Britain, Germany, and France.[15]

 

[Crick]

" More Schizoid Lunacy From Population Hoarding Climate Change Grant Writers "
|
* Those That Can Do And Tough Titty Conscripting Self Deprecation Of Lucrative Advantages *

So with less than a quarter of the people, we in the U.S. manage to produce more than half as many emissions. We therefore produce more on an individual basis. We'll continue having no standing to criticize others until we can get our own house in order. India has nearly the same population as China yet produces less than half the emissions we do. Why does India make us both look like crap by either measure? Because India has never been as industrialized. Would you like them to be? Great Britain and Germany have been very industrial so why aren't they topping any lists? What's our excuse? Why have we let China lead the green tech revolution?

A motivation to get rid of us industry that has competent purposes for competitive advantage as infrastructure or as domestic product , whether carbon dioxide is produced or not , to avoid consternation by some sanctimonious brow beaters hurling guilt trips of greedy gluttonous degenerates on us public , is absolute stupid fuckery ! ! !

The trump sought to assert state capitalism as a domestic economy more greatly directed by free enterprise , that also included tariffs and tax credits to retain and accrue competitive us domestic industry , which could include emphasis on a green technology revolution .

The trump did not seek to assert state capitalism as a domestic economy more greatly directed by bureaucrats , that also includes measures to alienate and deplete competitive domestic industry based on a climate change revolution .

Which policies of which party more closely parallel which economics system ?

Globalism Of Neoclassical Economics Versus Nationalism Of American School Of Economics

" Globalism Of Neoclassical Economics Versus Nationalism Of American School Of Economics " * Domestic Product Interests Are Not Nurtured But Contracted To The Lowest Global Bidder When Possible * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics Neoclassical economics uses the utility...

www.usmessageboard.com

* Most Industrialized Duh *

Gilded Age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Gilded Age was a period of economic growth as the United States jumped to the lead in industrialization ahead of Britain. The nation was rapidly expanding its economy into new areas, especially heavy industry like factories, railroads, and coal mining.

Railroad track mileage tripled between 1860 and 1880, and then doubled again by 1920. The new track linked formerly isolated areas with larger markets and allowed for the rise of commercial farming, ranching, and mining, creating a truly national marketplace. American steel production rose to surpass the combined totals of Britain, Germany, and France.[15]

Do you have a point? If so, you've failed to make it.

 

[skookerasbil]

" Climate Change Wizard Clueless About A Ratio "

* Analysis On Stupid And The Planet Is Full *

CO2 in the atmosphere is not affected by transpiration. It is affected when we take carbon compounds out of the Earth and burn them, creating CO2 and putting it into the atmosphere. And why do you have no comment about China ranking so low on per capita emissions? Weren't you just telling us that China was the worst and deserved 100% of our efforts? You should try admitting you were wrong. It's good for the soul.

Do you have the slightest clue what a Ratio - Wikipedia is and how to calculate per capita emissions ?

Per Capita Emission = CO2 emissions of a country DIVIDED by population of a country .

China population 1.398 billion (2019)
US population 328.2 million (2019)

China has ( 1398/328 ~= ) 4.262 times more people than the us and China could dump ~4.262 times more COs emmissions into the air to equal per capita emissions of the us .

Is the entirety of the liberal arts majors of the left on board with such gawd awful ignorance that they believe shifting CO2 emissions to china based on per capita ratio makes any sense ?

The bid inn and the left are the long are of the ccp and the shifting of industry to china is all about dismantling us infrastructure and enabling chinese communist hegemony .

-- Each Country's Share of CO2 Emissions --

Rank	Country	CO2 emissions (total)
1	China	10.06GT
2	United States	5.41GT
3	India	2.65GT
4	Russian Federation	1.71GT
5	Japan	1.16GT

Yep.......you'll notice that the climate crusaders talk about the drivel that nobody cares about. Just not big picture guys at all......frankly, I think it is a thinking pathology.

Think about it.........who with any degree of reasoned judgement advocates for spending trillion in taxpayer $$ to fight climate change while China continues to build 2-3 coal plants/month ( and will out to 2030 )? The thinking is very shaky. It would be like somebody going for nose-job plastic surgery yet having no teeth.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

China has ( 1398/328 ~= ) 4.262 times more people than the us and China could dump ~4.262 times more COs emmissions into the air to equal per capita emmissions .

Rank	Country	CO2 emissions (total)
1	China	10.06GT
2	United States	5.41GT
3	India	2.65GT
4	Russian Federation	1.71GT
5	Japan	1.16GT

So with less than a quarter of the people, we in the U.S. manage to produce more than half as many emissions. We therefore produce more on an individual basis. We'll continue having no standing to criticize others until we can get our own house in order. India has nearly the same population as China yet produces less than half the emissions we do. Why does India make us both look like crap by either measure? Because India has never been as industrialized. Would you like them to be? Great Britain and Germany have been very industrial so why aren't they topping any lists? What's our excuse? Why have we let China lead the green tech revolution?

Unless the USA generates a specific variant of the CO2 molecule your point, is well, totally pointless.

You sound like a paid CCP shill, are you?

 

[BlackSand]

We need to eliminate GHG emissions. What that costs depends a great deal on you and I. I strenuously suspect that my way of doing it would cost a fraction of the manner you would end up doing it.

.

The most abundant Greenhouse Gas is H2O (water), and everything Organic is Carbon Based.
Kill yourself and we will all be closer to solving the problem ...

.​

 

[jc456]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

Longer growing seasons.
Fewer cold related deaths.
A greener planet.

 

[Oddball]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

Longer growing seasons.
Fewer cold related deaths.
A greener planet.

A greener planet?!?....Won't that end up absorbing more of the CO2 that all the hand wringing Chicken Littles are all up in arms about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

Longer growing seasons.
Fewer cold related deaths.
A greener planet.

A greener planet?!?....Won't that end up absorbing more of the CO2 that all the hand wringing Chicken Littles are all up in arms about?

Why yes it would!

 

[jc456]

Yep.......you'll notice that the climate crusaders talk about the drivel that nobody cares about. Just not big picture guys at all......frankly, I think it is a thinking pathology.

Think about it.........who with any degree of reasoned judgement advocates for spending trillion in taxpayer $$ to fight climate change while China continues to build 2-3 coal plants/month ( and will out to 2030 )? The thinking is very shaky. It would be like somebody going for nose-job plastic surgery yet having no teeth.

not to critique you my friend, but my take on that statement would have been, someone going for a nose-job plastic surgery and coming out with the same nose.

Just saying

 

[Crick]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

Longer growing seasons.
Fewer cold related deaths.
A greener planet.

A greener planet?!?....Won't that end up absorbing more of the CO2 that all the hand wringing Chicken Littles are all up in arms about?

Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere but return it when they decompose. The problem CO2 is that being removed from the ground (oil and coal) and put into the atmosphere. It does not get recycled in a timely fashion.

 

[ding]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

Longer growing seasons.
Fewer cold related deaths.
A greener planet.

A greener planet?!?....Won't that end up absorbing more of the CO2 that all the hand wringing Chicken Littles are all up in arms about?

Plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere but return it when they decompose. The problem CO2 is that being removed from the ground (oil and coal) and put into the atmosphere. It does not get recycled in a timely fashion.

There seems to be a flaw in your logic somewhere. If plants return CO2 to the atmosphere when they decompose, then how did all of that carbon get buried in the first place?

As to your belief that carbon put into the atmosphere does not get recycled in a timely fashion, then why is it there only an atmospheric net gain of ~50% from what is emitted?

 

[Crick]

Over hundreds of millions of years - the time span required for the development of fossil fuels - a very small fraction of decaying plant matter needs to be entrapped to create the Earth's holdings. The primary difference between total CO2 emissions and what ends up in the atmosphere is that which dissolves in the world's oceans, lakes and streams. If you were under the impression that it was somehow getting buried back in the Earth, you need to find us a suitable mechanism.

 

[Crick]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

Longer growing seasons.
Fewer cold related deaths.
A greener planet.

A greener planet?!?....Won't that end up absorbing more of the CO2 that all the hand wringing Chicken Littles are all up in arms about?

Why yes it would!

Then why hasn't it already happened? CO2 is higher and the planet is warmer. Apparently, the planet IS getting greener but it isn't helping. Here's an article you all should like: As Our Planet Gets Greener, Plants Are Slowing Global Warming

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because you will do nothing until you are forced by the consequences of warming

What consequence?

Longer growing seasons.
Fewer cold related deaths.
A greener planet.

A greener planet?!?....Won't that end up absorbing more of the CO2 that all the hand wringing Chicken Littles are all up in arms about?

Why yes it would!

Then why hasn't it already happened? CO2 is higher and the planet is warmer. Apparently, the planet IS getting greener but it isn't helping. Here's an article you all should like: As Our Planet Gets Greener, Plants Are Slowing Global Warming

Growing seasons are longer, cold related deaths are lower and the planet is greener.

 

[Crick]

Seasonal timing has changed. Plants will take a little longer to evolve to make use of that change. Say, a hundred thousand years or so.