Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They then use the tactic, they ask, feel the heat emitted from asphalt? That same heat comes from co2. Then I say, Why then can’t I feel the radiation in the air like I can from the asphalt ? They say, you do. No I don’t and, it isn’t captured by measuring it with satellites higher up!They manufacture fudge and then trot out these bozos to talk math about it...
They cannot explain THE DATA.
feel the heat emitted from asphalt?
That same heat comes from co2.
ice cores which show
Good use of quotes since these things so rarely hint of actual debate, largely because none are climatologists here. The climatologists go to climatology forums. Only fools think they're accomplishing anything important here at smoke a lib! central. I suppose it beats watching FOX NEWS for those stuck in wheelchairs. When taking breaks from my more practical endeavors, I enjoy the opportunity to get some updates and better resolve my thoughts.I almost never join in “climate change debates” because I simply am not a climatologist and don’t have anything important to say.
I care when people with no understanding of a subject complain about those whose pocket books it touches. And, the only thing humans can do is pollute, we can’t make it rain and the experts trying to take our money say we can, yet those same people say we make droughts. If you can’t see that flaw, just shut up about the topic and move on!All this is way over my head, and I’m not going to worry much about it.
But I don’t mind switching to new light bulbs, flushing with less water in areas where there are water shortages, and I expect my granddaughter will eventually drive an EV or something other than an ICE auto.
Isn’t much of the fresh water disappearing in many parts of the world due to human activity? I’ve lived in areas where old fashioned air and water pollution were almost unbearable … but finally cleaned up. Today we have trouble managing even regular human garbage, and some gets shipped all around the world to poorer countries. Of course there is also industrial and chemical, nuclear and other toxic stuff — much of it we never see — especially since so many of the factories that produce what we consume are now overseas.
We depend on science and laws to survive and flourish, but much of the world is far behind us economically and also environmentally.
Didn’t we (as in “the human race”) get rid of or severely limit fluorocarbons for a good reason? Something about protecting the ozone layer?
I love the ideas of angels dancing … like in the lovely OP photo. But I’m not too confident that “angels” will save us from our human problems.
I think as a species we will need to rely on science (and international law) to help us get out of all the fixes we — and our present industrial society with its present scientific technology — have gotten ourselves into in the first place.
I also don’t trust any of the “science experts” who here on USMB scream that “climate change is all just a conspiracy”! I think we humans certainly are changing the global environment and the likely future prospects of all the species on earth — but exactly how severely humans will affect or screw up earth’s climate in the next hundred years, probably even the angels can’t say.
I don’t think “science” will ever have ALL the answers.
I almost never join in “climate change debates” because I simply am not a climatologist and don’t have anything important to say.
Too bad about the angels being so unreliable …
Most people are either physicists, meteorologists, geologists or scientists, but hardly any expert is an actual climatologist! Take a research look!Thanks for adding your 2¢
Good use of quotes since these things so rarely hint of actual debate, largely because none are climatologists here. The climatologists go to climatology forums. Only fools think they're accomplishing anything important here at smoke a lib! central. I suppose it beats watching FOX NEWS for those stuck in wheelchairs. When taking breaks from my more practical endeavors, I enjoy the opportunity to get some updates and better resolve my thoughts.
Well it is the number one thing none of them can explain. No heat measured in the area they say more heat comes from! In order to radiate heat, heat would need to exist!!
Isn’t much of the fresh water disappearing in many parts of the world due to human activity?
We can certainly use biology as a measure of climate ... obviously desert plants grow in the desert ... it's said an expert can look at the local oak tree and say his position within 50 miles ... anywhere on Earth's land masses ...
Average global climate is oceanic ... where air and liquid water meet ... see all the maps and charts, ocean climate doesn't change ... that's 71% of our weather ... 71% of our climate ... fully half the atmosphere by mass is oceanic ...
Most people are either physicists, meteorologists, geologists or scientists, but hardly any expert is an actual climatologist! Take a research look!
List of climate scientists - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I especially like model simulator
Thanks for adding your 2¢
Good use of quotes since these things so rarely hint of actual debate, largely because none are climatologists here. The climatologists go to climatology forums. Only fools think they're accomplishing anything important here at smoke a lib! central. I suppose it beats watching FOX NEWS for those stuck in wheelchairs. When taking breaks from my more practical endeavors, I enjoy the opportunity to get some updates and better resolve my thoughts.
Bravo!!! It’s not science it’s indoctrination and rote repetition!It seems these days, a lot of folks are obsessed with a phenomenon called "Climate Change". Apparently, as the phenomenon is explained, human beings are directly impacting the climate of The Earth in a way that will cause all life on Earth to go extinct in a fairly short time (historically speaking).
Like many beliefs, the belief in catastrophic climate change is based partly on observation and partly on indoctrination. The percentage of those parts vary differently from individual to individual.
Like most beliefs, there is an important drive in believers to make sure as many people as possible believe in the exact same thing. Those who can't be convinced to believe must be marginalized as "anti the belief", a "denier" of the belief", infidel, apostate, heretic, are also frequently used. The purpose of the marginalization is to assure that the tenets of the belief cannot be challenged, as anyone who might challenge the belief is already labeled and their input is therefore invalid.
As for the belief in catastrophic climate change, it is pointless to argue the minutiae of the belief such as variations in global temperature, percentage of gasses in the atmosphere, and predictions on how these may or may not affect humans on the world. It's pointless because there is no way for a normal individual to verify or disprove claims. They must be taken as articles of faith. Another reason they are pointless is that they don't change the fundamental questions of, "What is actually going on?", "What, if anything, do we do to change what is going on?, and, most important, "Is anything we actually do going to have an overall net positive or negative effect on humans?".
It's akin to arguing, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", before you've established the existence of angels and if they do in fact actually dance.
View attachment 790938
The challenge to the believers in catastrophic climate change is, without answering the fundamental questions above, there can never be any meaningful discussion about what we actually do about it.
If you are a firm believer in catastrophic climate change, you are already convinced that something (anything) needs to be done and you are challenged by the fact that you cannot take action without convincing a majority of others to agree (or, at least not actively reject) to what you want to be done.
Without a critical mass of believers, willing to do what you want, you have limited options to actual changes to society you feel need to be implemented.
You can:
A) Hold an inquisition. Make sure that people who don't believe (and have the power to resist change) are isolated and removed from any position where they might interfere with your changes.
B) Seize political power. Obtain enough political power to implement changes even in the face of resistance from the masses.
C) Seek solutions that don't require either political will or government mandate. Privately fund solutions such as commercial energy alternatives, carbon heat sinks, or alternative technologies.
However you seek to face the challenges of changing hearts and minds (as well as lifestyles) of the majority of humans on this Earth, it probably won't be solved by posting argumentative threads about how many tenths of a degree temperature difference occurred between last week and this week or how many parts per million of a particular gas is measured in Timbuktu.
But the poles have been ice free since 2014, exactly as predicted by the Prophets Kerry and Gore, praise be their Holy Names and death to the DeniersAntarctica has grown ice every year for tens of millions of years. And will continue to do so for millions more...
To dispute that is to argue we never got any ice cores from Antarctica. Um, yeah, we did, and they showed Co2 increases lagged temp increases = Co2 rising is a by product of a continent specific ice age moving more than 600 miles from the nearest pole.
You assert nonsense and respond to nothing intelligently. Rather than build upon the broad shoulders of those who methodically researched, experimented, and reported before, your heroes' shoulders lean into protecting the bloated tics who regularly loot billions directly from the big corporations they purchase and "buy back" specifically to plunder and hide behind until they're completely used up.Yet you and your heroes cannot explain
how Co2 melted North America and froze Greenland at the same time
why there is ice age glacier south of the Arctic Circle on Greenland while there are trees and moose in Alaska north of Arctic Circle.
why with all the "ocean warming" there is no breakout in cane activity
why the highly correlated satellite and balloon data showed no warming in the atmosphere despite rising co2
why the Antarctic Circle is 50F colder than the Arctic Circle, and puts 9 times the ice into the oceans...
but you can parrot "the scientists" and refuse to answer...
You assert nonsense and respond to nothing intelligently. Rather than build upon the broad shoulders of those who methodically researched, experimented, and reported before, your heroes' shoulders lean into protecting the bloated tics who regularly loot billions directly from the big corporations they purchase and "buy back" specifically to plunder and hide behind until they're completely used up.
So the warmers are referring to sea ice, they think the sea ice doesn’t melt in summer! Cracks me up they know nothing about planet earth and seasonal changes. Or that the globe tilts on the poles!!! HilariousAntarctica has grown ice every year for tens of millions of years. And will continue to do so for millions more...
To dispute that is to argue we never got any ice cores from Antarctica. Um, yeah, we did, and they showed Co2 increases lagged temp increases = Co2 rising is a by product of a continent specific ice age moving more than 600 miles from the nearest pole.
So the warmers are referring to sea ice, they think the sea ice doesn’t melt in summer! Cracks me up they know nothing about planet earth and seasonal changes. Or that the globe tilts on the poles!!! Hilarious
