What I Don't Understand About "Climate Change"

[Crick]

What??????????????????????????? You just admitted that climate change isn't necessarily man made because the other times in our history with high levels of CO2 and global warming, man wasn't even around. You just proved my point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your powers of reasoning have not improved. CO2 is produced when the world's oceans are warmed as that reduces the solubility of gases in liquids and it warms the planet via the greenhouse effect. A perfect positive feedback effect.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, if man is responsible for global warming, and the world's population is growing exponentially, we will NEVER get to the point where temps would reverse. As I said, the US isn't even in the top countries who pollute and Biden just had a climate change meeting where the biggest polluters and several large European countries didn't even show up. If the entire US started wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling by foot, the world's temps would still be rising. Why should we do that to ourselves? How is the world going to get to zero emissions with the biggest polluting countries in the world NOT getting to zero emissions?

Damn, we are #2, right after China. Not only that, in CO2 emitted since the industrial revolution, we are #1. Right now, China is installing more solar and wind than any other nation on Earth. They have planted more new forests than the rest of the world put together. Yes, they need to reduce their emissions, but per capita, their emissions are still far below ours.

 

[Independentthinker]

Lordy, lordy. Damn, some people are just born stupid. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 was 280 ppm. We know how much coal we have burned, how much oil and gas we have burned. And that is the only reason at present for the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere. We stand at 410+ ppm now, and it has not been that high in the last 23 million years. And at that time there were no continental ice sheets in either Greenland or Antarctica.

LOL. Damn, you just keep on proving my points. 23 million years ago man was not on the planet and there was no ice in Greenland or Antarctica. You are really making a fool out of yourself.

 

[MisterBeale]

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5

AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

APS emblem
American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

UNSAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Just want to address your point #1

Between Two Ages.pdf​

File:Between Two Ages.pdf - Wikispooks

wikispooks.com

". . .Not only have new weapons been developed but some of the basic concepts of geography and strategy have been fundamentally altered; space and weather control have replaced Suez or Gibraltar as key elements of strategy. In addition to improved rocketry, multi missiles, and more powerful and more accurate bombs, future developments may well include automated or manned space warships, deep sea installations, chemical and biological weapons, death rays, and still other forms of warfare—even the weather may be tampered with -> As one specialist noted, "By the year 2018, technology will make available to the leaders of the major nations a variety of techniques for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security forces need be appraised. One nation may attack a competitor covertly by bacteriological means, thoroughly weakening the population (though with a minimum of fatalities) before taking over with its own overt armed forces. Alternatively, techniques of weather modification could be employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm, thereby weakening a nation's capacity and forcing it to accept the demands of the competitor" (Gordon J. F. MacDonald, Space," in Toward the Year 2018, p. 34). - page 28"

High-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating

Download Citation | High-power ELF radiation generated by modulated HF heating of the ionosphere can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and localized heating | The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is actually the most important facility used to generate extremely low frequency...

www.researchgate.net

 

[Crick]

As usual, you guys pick your own sets of facts.

Where?

Independentthinker said:
1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

Crick said: There are no "proofs" in the natural sciences. There is evidence consisting of causal relationships, satisfied predictions and an absence of falsification. There is a GREAT deal more evidence that human GHG emissions are causing warming than that they are occurring concurrently. Your assumption here and in your other points that concern about global warming is solely held by "the left" is patently false. A far better argument may be made that such concerns are held by the educated but if that's a parallel you want to make, feel free.

Independentthinker said:
2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

Crick said: Those concerned about global warming would like to see serious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. That requires moving even more rapidly to alternative energy sources. That does NOT involve bankrupting the planet, wearing animal skins or eating berries. Oddly, you clearly admit here that human action is responsible for global warming and that a human response will eventually overcome it. As for the "factoid" you claim is being hidden; you certainly didn't learn that from the fossil fuel industry or their representatives. That stopping AGW will take committed effort and time is not a reason to skip it. It's reason to start is as quickly and as intensely as possible. You reason here like a grade schooler.

Independentthinker said:
3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

Crick said: No one has argued that the US can end global warming on its own, thus your "biggie" is more of a nothing burger. Given our per capita consumption of fossil fuels, however, the rest of the world would have a great deal of difficulty succeeding without us. It is absurd - and I do mean absurd - to claim that demanding the US take action equates to a belief that no other country need do anything. The truth, of course, is that we must ALL act. And since we are citizens of this democracy, it is with our nation we can have the greatest impact. Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol, the Bonn Agreement, the Bali Action Plan, the Paris Climate Accord and others allow us to negotiate and apply pressure on other nations to take the action we all know is required. Again, you reason this issue like a grade schooler.

 

[Independentthinker]

Where?


Crick said: There are no "proofs" in the natural sciences. There is evidence consisting of causal relationships, satisfied predictions and an absence of falsification. There is a GREAT deal more evidence that human GHG emissions are causing warming than that they are occurring concurrently. Your assumption here and in your other points that concern about global warming is solely held by "the left" is patently false. A far better argument may be made that such concerns are held by the educated but if that's a parallel you want to make, feel free.

Crick said: Those concerned about global warming would like to see serious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. That requires moving even more rapidly to alternative energy sources. That does NOT involve bankrupting the planet, wearing animal skins or eating berries. Oddly, you clearly admit here that human action is responsible for global warming and that a human response will eventually overcome it. As for the "factoid" you claim is being hidden; you certainly didn't learn that from the fossil fuel industry or their representatives. That stopping AGW will take committed effort and time is not a reason to skip it. It's reason to start is as quickly and as intensely as possible. You reason here like a grade schooler.

Crick said: No one has argued that the US can end global warming on its own, thus your "biggie" is more of a nothing burger. Given our per capita consumption of fossil fuels, however, the rest of the world would have a great deal of difficulty succeeding without us. It is absurd - and I do mean absurd - to claim that demanding the US take action equates to a belief that no other country need do anything. The truth, of course, is that we must ALL act. And since we are citizens of this democracy, it is with our nation we can have the greatest impact. Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol, the Bonn Agreement, the Bali Action Plan, the Paris Climate Accord and others allow us to negotiate and apply pressure on other nations to take the action we all know is required. Again, you reason this issue like a grade schooler.

I apologize. I made that post to you in haste. However, the US cannot control Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other big polluters. So, in the end, we will hurt ourselves giving us a very severe economic disadvantage while the countries I mentioned take advantage of our disadvantage, using it to their advantage while the end result will be global temps continue to rise. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should do absolutely nothing but most of the left naively think that if the US does all this crap, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and other catastrophic events will become less common when they won't because the worst countries will still be polluting. I say we do what we can and within reason but most of what the left want is unreasonable and unachievable.

 

[Slade3200]

LOL. Yes, that's what a typical lefty would say. Guess you don't know much about the Great Depression.

you didn’t answer the question

 

[Pete7469]

you didn’t answer the question

Stupid questions rarely deserve a response.

I can easily point out that by self inflicting laws and regulations that literally make it impossible to manufacture anything, produce the energy to travel, destroy markets, and tax everyone into poverty would bankrupt the planet.

Only a sniveling, mindless, bedwetting leftist drone can not reach that conclusion even when dragged kicking and screaming to that reality.

.

 

[Independentthinker]

you didn’t answer the question

Guess you don't know much about the Great Depression. That is the answer to your question.

 

[Crick]

I apologize. I made that post to you in haste. However, the US cannot control Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, or any of the other big polluters. So, in the end, we will hurt ourselves giving us a very severe economic disadvantage while the countries I mentioned take advantage of our disadvantage, using it to their advantage while the end result will be global temps continue to rise. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should do absolutely nothing but most of the left naively think that if the US does all this crap, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, and other catastrophic events will become less common when they won't because the worst countries will still be polluting. I say we do what we can and within reason but most of what the left want is unreasonable and unachievable.

For the duration of the Trump administration, it was the US that took advantage of the situation while every other nation on the planet signed on to the Paris Accord. And please show me some evidence that anyone believe US action is all that is needed.

 

[Independentthinker]

For the duration of the Trump administration, it was the US that took advantage of the situation while every other nation on the planet signed on to the Paris Accord. And please show me some evidence that anyone believe US action is all that is needed.

The left want us to do something, like spend over 3 T's while the highest polluters do almost nothing. And, Trump was right. The US was, again, nothing but the world's piggy bank. While several other countries pollute more than we do, we were expected to do more, including footing much of the bill for third world industrial countries. And, under Trump, the US got better on pollution, without the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord is nothing but a contract where we wind up footing most of the world's bill. Now we've got Biden in charge and holding a forum on Climate Change and Russia, India, China, and even several notable European countries didn't even show up for the meeting.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ummmmmmmmmmmm, if man is responsible for global warming, and the world's population is growing exponentially, we will NEVER get to the point where temps would reverse. As I said, the US isn't even in the top countries who pollute and Biden just had a climate change meeting where the biggest polluters and several large European countries didn't even show up. If the entire US started wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling by foot, the world's temps would still be rising. Why should we do that to ourselves? How is the world going to get to zero emissions with the biggest polluting countries in the world NOT getting to zero emissions? The left are fools for believing this.

The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand

Emissions wipe out viruses and prevented all pandemics until the Lethal Lockdown. If you're unwilling to go that far, the GreenHeads have enough control over you to get their way.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Lordy, lordy. Damn, some people are just born stupid. Prior to the industrial revolution, CO2 was 280 ppm. We know how much coal we have burned, how much oil and gas we have burned. And that is the only reason at present for the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere. We stand at 410+ ppm now, and it has not been that high in the last 23 million years. And at that time there were no continental ice sheets in either Greenland or Antarctica.

Yet there never take into account all that CO2 that has been passed through the plants and trees. Anyone wonder why that is left out in the models?

 

[Crick]

The left want us to do something, like spend over 3 T's while the highest polluters do almost nothing. And, Trump was right. The US was, again, nothing but the world's piggy bank. While several other countries pollute more than we do, we were expected to do more, including footing much of the bill for third world industrial countries. And, under Trump, the US got better on pollution, without the Paris Accord. The Paris Accord is nothing but a contract where we wind up footing most of the world's bill. Now we've got Biden in charge and holding a forum on Climate Change and Russia, India, China, and even several notable European countries didn't even show up for the meeting.

Then you'll have to explain how the Paris Accords continued without US participation.

Switching away from fossil fuels as quickly as we need to do so will cost money; there is no denying it. However, the longer we put it off, the more it will cost. If we had started with the Kyoto agreement and carried on as we should have, we might have had a chance. But given folks like you and America's apparent cowardice to actually take on a painful challenge, we will suffer all manner of harm from global warming and the cost of dealing with that will be several TIMES what it would have cost had we stepped up to the bar as and when we should have.

 

[Independentthinker]

Then you'll have to explain how the Paris Accords continued without US participation.

Switching away from fossil fuels as quickly as we need to do so will cost money; there is no denying it. However, the longer we put it off, the more it will cost. If we had started with the Kyoto agreement and carried on as we should have, we might have had a chance. But given folks like you and America's apparent cowardice to actually take on a painful challenge, we will suffer all manner of harm from global warming and the cost of dealing with that will be several TIMES what it would have cost had we stepped up to the bar as and when we should have.

As said earlier, if Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia and other higher polluting countries don't get tough then it doesn't really matter what we do and none of them showed up for Biden's Climate Change Forum. It doesn't make sense for us to make all of the sacrifices while they exploit our weakness to their advantage. We can't fight global warming all by ourselves and that is basically exactly what we are doing.

 

[Rigby5]

1. the Earth has had many periods of warming and cooling and the left can't prove that the current warming isn't just a natural cycle that would have happened anyway, despite industrialization. The two happening at the same time could just be a coincidence and the left can't prove that they aren't just a coincidence.

2. Assuming we did everything the left wanted to do (like bankrupt the entire planet and having us all wearing animal skins, eating berries, and traveling on foot), even most of them admit that global temperatures would still rise. While they always imply that temps would go back down, their own facts show that temps would continue to rise, admitting that the best we can do is cut down on the rate of the increasing temperatures. Somehow they never bring up that little factoid.

3. Now this is the biggie. I really don't understand how in the hell the left thinks that the US and the US alone can decrease global temps (see point 2 that even the left admit that all we can do is limit the growth rate of global temps, not actually decrease global temps). The left are always implying that If the US (all by itself) did all of these things they want the US to do, there would be fewer catastrophic fires, floods, hurricanes, etc.. India and China are by far the biggest polluters on the planet and several other countries are out in front of the US, and yet now that environment fighting Joe is now president, several other world leaders wouldn't even attend Biden's recent forum on the climate. So, what good would it actually do if the rest of the planet, particularly the really bad countries, didn't do their part?

Leaders of China, India, and other major economies skip out on Biden's latest climate forum

A number of key world leaders were notably absent from President Joe Biden's Friday morning climate forum.

www.yahoo.com

First of all, it is easy to prove the current global warming is not naturel because we know that the natural warming and cooling cycles is 110,000 years long, and this current warming is only 40 years old, and it is adding warming on top of the natural cycle already being warm.

We can not immediately stop the warming, but if we do not immediately stop the cause, then it will get so hot that all life may die on the planet.
If we do immediately stop the cause, it will still warm for 20 years, but never reach a deadly extreme.

The US can stop global warming alone because it is essentially only the US that is consuming so much per person, that it causing the whole problem.
The rest of the world already is doing things like mass transit, so already is using far less fossil fuel.
The planet can absorb most of the CO2, so we only need about a 20% reduction, and the US creates about 30% of the planets excess CO2.

 

[Rigby5]

Damn. So I had to look at the rest of your really dumb post. What the scientists say that if we went to zero emissions instantly, and impossibility, that temps would continue to rise for at least 20 to 30 years. Though at a declining rate. We have a big inertial system out there called oceans. As far as your oh so laughable comment about animal skins, it is people like you that are stuck in the past. The technology is already here to completely switch to renewables by 2030. And we would have a more stable and robust grid. But willfully ignorant people like you have zero understanding of technology. I am willing to bet that you were one of the fools that stated the EV's would never work, and Tesla would be bankrupt in a year. And that was only about 8 years ago.

No one would say EVs do not work, but they do not make sense.
They cost twice as much, weight twice as much, and do not have much range, especially if you have lots of options on, like heat, wipers, and headlights.
The batteries also have only a 10 year lifespan and cost $7k.

 

[Rigby5]

As I said, the US isn't even in the top countries who pollute

Wrong.
Per person, the US is like 4 times worse than any other country in amount of pollution.

 

[Rigby5]

if man is responsible for global warming, and the world's population is growing exponentially, we will NEVER get to the point where temps would reverse.

Wrong. It is not the number of people that causes pollution, but the jets, cars, AC, waste, etc. that produce so much more CO2 per person than is necessary.
We could switch from cars and airliners, to trains and buses, and cut our CO2 production by over 50%.

 

[Rigby5]

As said earlier, if Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia and other higher polluting countries don't get tough then it doesn't really matter what we do and none of them showed up for Biden's Climate Change Forum. It doesn't make sense for us to make all of the sacrifices while they exploit our weakness to their advantage. We can't fight global warming all by ourselves and that is basically exactly what we are doing.

Wrong.
There is no other country producing as much emissions per person as the US.
And what we do sets the standard that everyone else follows.