-
Climate Denial
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Somewhere I read they were working on cutting the NOAA budget. Probably an important agency to boaters like Dergon. I think we should heat the White House with a coal fired furnace.
And cutting the Coast Guard …. bigly (equally important to boaters)
-
I must’ve missed that one. Usually if I’m vacationing on the ocean we like to do a charter fishing day. I’m a little nervous boating. Everything in the water is bait for something even the boat. It was comforting when you’re 20 miles off shore in the charter captain says if they push the button on the EPIRB, the Coast Guard comes to the rescue.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I must’ve missed that one. Usually if I’m vacationing on the ocean we like to do a charter fishing day. I’m a little nervous boating. Everything in the water is bait for something even the boat. It was comforting when you’re 20 miles off shore in the charter captain says if they push the button on the EPIRB, the Coast Guard comes to the rescue.
[link=http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/02/trump-military-build-up-threatens-to-cut-u-s-coast-guard-budget-cuts-department-of-homeland-security/]http://foreignpolicy.com/…-of-homeland-security/[/link]
“While U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday touted a dramatic buildup of the U.S. military aboard the Navys newest carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, his government quietly unveiled plans to gut the the U.S. Coast Guard.
The Office of Management and Budget is targeting roughly 10 percent budget cuts for the tiny and always cash-strapped military branch. The $1.3 billion cut to the U.S. Coast Guard in fiscal year 2018 includes a directive to scrap the building of a $500 million ship, the newest National Security Cutter (NSC).
Though its the smallest of the military branches, the Coast Guard punches above its weight, particularly on issues of importance to the Trump administration including illegal immigration, protecting U.S. borders, and drug interdiction. ”
_____
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/to-fund-border-wall-trump-administration-weighs-cuts-to-coast-guard-airport-security/2017/03/07/ba4a8e5c-036f-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_border-0634pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6a4aaf95fa32]Trump look to make cut to Coat Guard to fund border wall[/url]-
Last time I looked the Coast Guard was important intercepting immigrants refugees and drug runners. So the Wall will stop them walking but if they sail or motor in it’s OK. And no need for coconut-sized calves either when drugs are boated in so it’s OK. I’m also assuming the Republican who referenced calves has skinny legs from sitting around on his fat sofa-cushion buttocks all day.
-
Quote from Frumious
Last time I looked the Coast Guard was important intercepting immigrants refugees and drug runners. So the Wall will stop them walking but if they sail or motor in it’s OK. And no need for coconut-sized calves either when drugs are boated in so it’s OK. I’m also assuming the Republican who referenced calves has skinny legs from sitting around on his fat sofa-cushion buttocks all day.
Yet another reason the Coast Guard is important. Not a lot of drug smuggling on Lake Erie to my knowledge but they’re probably very busy on the Southern waters. The DJT mindset doesn’t work. Protect the border but cut the Coast Guard.
-
Large sections of the Great Barrier Reef are already dead & more is dying from rising ocean temperatures.
Good to know there is no global warming. Just Australia’s way of asking for more money for fraudulent reasons. The Chinese are behind the fraud.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/science/great-barrier-reef-nasa-australia.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ef-nasa-australia.html[/link]-
global greening!
more forests and more food for everyone
but who cares, it’s better to report some lefty version of the apocalypse, lololololololol-
A surprise win for environementalists in the Senate.
[url=https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/05/10/us/politics/ap-us-congress-methane-rule.html] Three GOP Senators defect and move to block Trump’s efforts to overturn Obama environmental regulations on emissions[/url]
In a surprising win for environmentalists and Democrats and a blow to the fossil-fuel industry, the Senate on Wednesday failed in a bid to reverse an Obama-era regulation restricting harmful methane emissions that escape from [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleum-and-gasoline/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]oil[/link] and gas wells on federal land.
The vote was 51-49 in the Republican-led Senate with three GOP lawmakers Maine’s Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona joining forces with the Democrats to block efforts to overturn the rule.
President Barack Obama finalized a rule in November that would force energy companies to capture methane that’s burned off or “flared” at drilling sites because it earns less money than oil.-
the Senate will save us.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
There is no climate change. There is no climate warming. There is absolutely nothing unusual about today’s weather compared to the past, whether the past if 50 years ago, 20 years ago, hundreds of years ago, thousands or millions of years ago.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/29/opinion/harvey-the-storm-that-humans-helped-cause.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…mans-helped-cause.html[/link]
The daily surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico last winter [link=https://twitter.com/MichaelRLowry/status/836614194401267712]never dropped[/link] below 73 degrees. You can probably guess how many previous times that had happened: Zero.
This sort of heat has a specific effect on storms: Warmer weather [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/looks-like-rain-again-and-again.html?_r=0]causes[/link]heavier rainfall. Why? When the seas warm, more moisture [link=https://qz.com/1062574/hurricane-harvey-and-climate-change-did-rising-temperatures-and-sea-levels-make-harvey-worse/]evaporates[/link]into the air, and when the air warms which has also been happening in Texas it can carry more moisture.
The severity of Harvey, in other words, is almost certainly related to climate change.
Yes, I know the sober warning thats issued whenever an extreme weather disaster occurs: [i]No individual storm can be definitively blamed on climate change.[/i] Its true, too. Some version of Harvey probably would have happened without climate change, and well never know the hypothetical truth.
But its time to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather.
We dont display the same fussiness in other important areas. No individual case of lung cancer can be definitively linked to smoking, as Heidi Cullen, the chief scientist at Climate Central, [link=http://time.com/4914840/hurricane-harvey-climate-change/]notes[/link]. Few vehicle accidents can be definitely linked to alcohol, and few saved lives can be definitively linked to seatbelts.
Yet smoking, drunken driving and seatbeltless riding each created a public health crisis. Once the link [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/opinion/what-weather-is-the-fault-of-climate-change.html?mcubz=0]became clear[/link] and widely understood, people changed their behavior and prevented a whole lot of suffering.
The immediate priorities, of course, are protection and rescue, and many Texans are rising to the moment. Houston has a certain friendly swagger, a mix of old Texas and new, and its evident this week. Residents are checking up on neighbors and saving people theyd never met before. The stories are inspiring.
Theyre inspiring because they involve people coming together to protect one another. And how can people come together to protect one another from future storms and floods? The answer starts with getting real about climate change, which is the main reason storms are doing more damage than in the past.
-
I do think the climate is changing, but it’s hard to say this wouldn’t have happened anyway. They’ve had major hurricanes in Texas before. There was one that killed a lot of people in the early 1900’s. Part of the problem I suspect is we’ve basically paved the desert to build a huge metropolis like Houston. There’s no where for the water to go. We have the same issues here dealing with storm waters. They call it a 1000 year flood but what was there 1000 years ago to flood?
-
Read the article. Nowhere does it claim that the storm would not or could not have happened without global warming. It claims that storms are made more severe due to more energy in the ocean and atmosphere. As in the Gulf temperature this winter never dropped below 73 degrees F. When has that ever happened before since recording temperatures? never.
“This sort of heat has a specific effect on storms: Warmer weather [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/looks-like-rain-again-and-again.html?_r=0]causes[/link]heavier rainfall. Why? When the seas warm, more moisture [link=https://qz.com/1062574/hurricane-harvey-and-climate-change-did-rising-temperatures-and-sea-levels-make-harvey-worse/]evaporates[/link]into the air, and when the air warms which has also been happening in Texas it can carry more moisture. ”
As for what was there to flood? The land, same as today. The area was inhabited 1,000 years ago.
[link=http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/coast/prehistory/images/intro.html]http://www.texasbeyondhis…tory/images/intro.html[/link]
-
Quote from Frumious
Read the article. Nowhere does it claim that the storm would not or could not have happened without global warming. It claims that storms are made more severe due to more energy in the ocean and atmosphere. As in the Gulf temperature this winter never dropped below 73 degrees F. When has that ever happened before since recording temperatures? never.
“This sort of heat has a specific effect on storms: Warmer weather [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/looks-like-rain-again-and-again.html?_r=0]causes[/link]heavier rainfall. Why? When the seas warm, more moisture [link=https://qz.com/1062574/hurricane-harvey-and-climate-change-did-rising-temperatures-and-sea-levels-make-harvey-worse/]evaporates[/link]into the air, and when the air warms which has also been happening in Texas it can carry more moisture. ”
As for what was there to flood? The land, same as today. The area was inhabited 1,000 years ago.
[link=http://www.texasbeyondhistory.net/coast/prehistory/images/intro.html]http://www.texasbeyondhis…tory/images/intro.html[/link]
Was it worse? It was a Category 2 correct. Maybe it would’ve been a Cat 1.but still on the milder end of the 1-5 scale. What I’m saying is now more than ever the area just can’t handle all the water at one time. The land is not the same today as it was 1000 years ago. It’s totally changed by all city scape, the houses, the roads, and all the other infrastructure. 1000 years ago it was probably all dirt, grass, trees, and shrubs.
-
I hope you all ride bikes to work. Have solar panels on your mansions. Travel around the country in your Teslas.
-
Quote from Ben Casey
I hope you all ride bikes to work. Have solar panels on your mansions. Travel around the country in your Teslas.
No MacMansion.
Ride my bike a lot but I’m definitely not up to Flounce’s level & very possibly not kpack’s either. But I do put on 20+ miles on an average ride. Used to ride to & from work when the job was 20 miles away.
No Tesla. Unlike some people born into money, I can’t afford a Tesla yet, I actually have to save my pennies instead of Daddy buying mine.-
[link=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/#3cf03f7455a4]https://www.forbes.com/si…-extreme/#3cf03f7455a4[/link]
[link]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862[/link]
Extreme weather and alarmism up the coming end of the world in 1862, I guess, as well. Another inconvenient truth.-
[link=https://phys.org/news/2017-08-proof-earth-natural-thermostat.html]https://phys.org/news/201…atural-thermostat.html[/link]
What anyone with common sense and not an agenda knew for his whole life. And the earth’s history.
Death blow to alarmist, central gov’t and political idiocy.-
Yeah it’s pretty obvious you didnt read to the end of that article. ‘Death blow” nothing of the sort. Please at least read the stuff you link if you’re expecting us to read it.
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
[link=https://phys.org/news/2017-08-proof-earth-natural-thermostat.html]https://phys.org/news/201…atural-thermostat.html[/link]
What anyone with common sense and not an agenda knew for his whole life. And the earth’s history.
Death blow to alarmist, central gov’t and political idiocy.
Did you actually read the article AND the related article at the end of yours?
Like I told Jan, if you’re going to post things you THINK support your biases, read them first so you don’t make an ass out of yourself.
[link=https://phys.org/news/2017-05-weathering-poor-global-temperatures.html]https://phys.org/news/201…obal-temperatures.html[/link]
[h1][/h1][h1]Weathering of rocks a poor regulator of global temperatures[/h1] The researchers created a computer simulation of the flows of carbon required to match all the geologic records, thus reproducing the dramatic transition from the warm mid-Cretaceous times to today.
“We found that to be able to explain all the datatemperature, CO2, ocean chemistry, everythingthe dependence of chemical weathering on temperature has to be a lot weaker than was commonly assumed,” Krissansen-Totton said. “You also need to have something else changing weathering rates that has nothing to do with temperature.”
Geologists had previously estimated that a temperature increase of 7 C would double the rate of chemical weathering. But the new results show that more than three times that temperature jump, or 24 C, is required to double the rate at which rock is washed away.
“It’s just a much less efficient thermostat,” Krissansen-Totton said.
“In retrospect, our results make a lot of sense,” Catling said. “Rocks tell us that Earth has had large swings in temperature over geological history, so Earth’s natural thermostat can’t be a very tight one.”
Their calculations also indicate a stronger relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, known as climate sensitivity. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere eventually triggered an increase of 5 or 6 degrees Celsius in global temperatures, which is about twice the typical projections for [link=https://phys.org/tags/temperature/]temperature[/link] change over centuries for a similar doubling of CO2 due to human emissions.
Though not the final word, researchers said, these numbers are bad news for today’s climate shifts.
“What all this means is that in the very long term, our distant descendants can expect more warming for far longer if carbon dioxide levels and temperatures continue to rise,” Catling said.
[h1][/h1]-
Thank U for the articles–informative–u can only lead them to the water whether they choose to drink it
Quote from Frumious
Quote from Dr. ****er
[link=https://phys.org/news/2017-08-proof-earth-natural-thermostat.html]https://phys.org/news/201…atural-thermostat.html[/link]
What anyone with common sense and not an agenda knew for his whole life. And the earth’s history.
Death blow to alarmist, central gov’t and political idiocy.
Did you actually read the article AND the related article at the end of yours?
Like I told Jan, if you’re going to post things you THINK support your biases, read them first so you don’t make an ass out of yourself.
[link=https://phys.org/news/2017-05-weathering-poor-global-temperatures.html]https://phys.org/news/201…obal-temperatures.html[/link]
[h1]Weathering of rocks a poor regulator of global temperatures[/h1] The researchers created a computer simulation of the flows of carbon required to match all the geologic records, thus reproducing the dramatic transition from the warm mid-Cretaceous times to today.
“We found that to be able to explain all the datatemperature, CO2, ocean chemistry, everythingthe dependence of chemical weathering on temperature has to be a lot weaker than was commonly assumed,” Krissansen-Totton said. “You also need to have something else changing weathering rates that has nothing to do with temperature.”
Geologists had previously estimated that a temperature increase of 7 C would double the rate of chemical weathering. But the new results show that more than three times that temperature jump, or 24 C, is required to double the rate at which rock is washed away.
“It’s just a much less efficient thermostat,” Krissansen-Totton said.
“In retrospect, our results make a lot of sense,” Catling said. “Rocks tell us that Earth has had large swings in temperature over geological history, so Earth’s natural thermostat can’t be a very tight one.”
Their calculations also indicate a stronger relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature, known as climate sensitivity. Doubling CO2 in the atmosphere eventually triggered an increase of 5 or 6 degrees Celsius in global temperatures, which is about twice the typical projections for [link=https://phys.org/tags/temperature/]temperature[/link] change over centuries for a similar doubling of CO2 due to human emissions.
Though not the final word, researchers said, these numbers are bad news for today’s climate shifts.
“What all this means is that in the very long term, our distant descendants can expect more warming for far longer if carbon dioxide levels and temperatures continue to rise,” Catling said. -
They go against the very thing they say because they are honest in part, then have to tow the line, regardless, because they are career automatons with something to lose, if they don’t spin it.
I read it. Read deeper.
-
-
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
[link=https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme/#3cf03f7455a4]https://www.forbes.com/si…-extreme/#3cf03f7455a4[/link]
[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862[/link]
Extreme weather and alarmism up the coming end of the world in 1862, I guess, as well. Another inconvenient truth.
So in 1862 the Earth warmed enough to melt glaciers in Europe and south America and opened the Northern Passage through the Arctic just like today?
Or was the melting regional only local to Oregon, Nevada & California?
Oh, it was local only.
If all you can present is garbage distractions Faager, then just stop.
-
-
-
-
-
-
500 year flood and 1,000 year flood
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/28/climate/500-year-flood-hurricane-harvey-houston.html]https://www.nytimes.com/i…ne-harvey-houston.html[/link]In the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, President Trump tweeted that the storm had brought a once in 500 year flood to Houston, and expressed support for relief efforts. His words suggested the kind of catastrophic event that hadnt been seen in the area for five centuries. But parts of Houston saw 500-year flooding [link=https://twitter.com/JeffLindner1/status/722070493499490304]just last year[/link]. And in 2001, [link=http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Progress-and-lessons-10-years-after-Tropical-1688752.php]Tropical Storm Allison[/link] also delivered severe flooding to the area.
-
Another article that helps explain how warming temperatures make storms worse.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/climate/how-hurricane-harvey-became-so-destructive.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…me-so-destructive.html[/link]
Hurricanes are essentially large weather engines fueled by the warm waters of the ocean below.
The mind-boggling amount of rainfall during Harvey is a function of the storm sitting by the Gulf of Mexico and continuing to draw moisture directly from it. Because of the orientation of the storm, Dr. Shepherd said, youve just got this stream of moisture firehosing into the Houston region, as the moisture is constantly replenished by the gulf.
Scientists are increasingly able to link some extreme weather events to [link=http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier]climate change[/link], but when it comes to hurricanes, many say there remain [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/hurricane-harvey-climate-change-texas.html?mcubz=0]a number of unknowns[/link]. What is clear, though, is that rising global temperatures warm the oceans, which causes more water to evaporate into the atmosphere.
The buildup of moisture in turn contributes to the global increase in extreme rainfall, [link=https://ncics.org/people/kenneth-kunkel/]Kenneth Kunkel[/link], a researcher with the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, said.
Even without climate change as a factor, Dr. Kunkel said, oceans are normally warm this time of year. But, he pointed out, the Gulf of Mexico has been [link=https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/a-sizzling-gulf-of-mexico-could-bring-more-spring-storms/]warmer than average[/link] lately, most likely feeding into the deluge.
With storms growing wetter thanks to climate change, Mr. Luettich and his collaborators are trying to add rainfall calculations to the coastal surge forecasting model.
-
-
Good lord Frumious, way to resurrect an old thread. Maybe go catch a podcast on “The Backfire Effect” and let this one pass to the beyond.
-
Same subject, does it matter New thread or renew old continuing discussion?
Besides I only renewed it from May 2017.
-
Like I said go check out that podcast and maybe start a new pot rather than re-stirring this overripe one.
-
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
Good lord Frumious, way to resurrect an old thread. Maybe go catch a podcast on “The Backfire Effect” and let this one pass to the beyond.
Yes, I’ve read that effect, information that contradicts people’s beliefs makes some people believe more strongly in the incorrect belief contrary to the facts.
Im listening, “plastic or paper?”
-
-
-
Trump reversed flooding regulations days before Hurricane Harvey[b][/b][i][/i][u][/u][strike][/strike]
-
Either carbon emissions cause global warming or they don’t.
[link=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4880930/Leo-Bieber-s-jet-setting-added-Irma.html]http://www.dailymail.co.u…etting-added-Irma.html[/link]
That’s Al Gore level hypocrisy.
-
Oh, anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming from burning fossil fuels should ride bicycles or walk instead of drive or fly or use electricity unless it is all renewable & created by renewable energy or risk being called hypocrites by the deniers on the Right.
Yeah, makes a lot of sense. If you are arguing that recognizing & doing something about anthropogenic global warming will only put us back in the pre-industrial ages, that is.
For that matter, in the Right’s absolutist arguments, even Man’s 1st discovery, fire, isn’t allowed. So for their purity’s sake, even fire and cooking isn’t allowed as it adds carbon to the atmosphere.
Idiocy & idiotic arguments.
-
Quote from Frumious
Oh, anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming from burning fossil fuels should ride bicycles or walk instead of drive or fly or use electricity unless it is all renewable & created by renewable energy or risk being called hypocrites by the deniers on the Right.
Pretty much. If you fly somewhere for work, take a business class seat. Drive a fuel efficient car and dont HVAC five different homes.
I don’t preach others about climate change, so I am under no such restriction. I can take my plane wherever I want to go and own as many classic cars and trucks as I want.
-
^ Yup
Another reason why it sucks being an idiot progressive. Most of the insanity is indeed, self imposed. Which is fine. The real problem is that they try to force it on YOU. A miserable lot, no doubt.
-
-
-
-
Or how about yet another historic Category 3/4 hurricane? It’s just a coinky-dink that all the biggest/most damaging storms in our country’s history have been clustered in the past 5-10 years.
-
“Natural variation” in climate. lol
-
Wasn’t there a storm as bad sometime once 60 years ago? How about snow in winter? I remember seeing snow last winter.
Proves no such thing as global warming.
Just pay no attention to the Northwest passage. Or melting Greenland. Or melting Antarctica. Or all the glaciers around the whole world, Asia, South America, North America, Alps & Europe, Africa, New Zealand.
All the non-scientists who claim they aren’t up on science but certainly know enough to know there is no global warming in spite of what scientists say. Must be a conspiracy of scientists, the only explanation.-
[b][i]all the biggest/most damaging storms in our country’s history have been clustered in the past 5-10 years.[/i][/b]
This is not true. Even Katrina which is in top 5 was in 2005, over your 10 year measure. There were only three storms that have made the top 10 within your 10 year limit, and they were in 2017. In fact some of the biggest, worst storms go back to late 1800’s early 1900’s. Michael will probably be added to the list.-
Quote from Ixrayu
[b][i]all the biggest/most damaging storms in our country’s history have been clustered in the past 5-10 years.[/i][/b]
This is not true. Even Katrina which is in top 5 was in 2005, over your 10 year measure. There were only three storms that have made the top 10 within your 10 year limit, and they were in 2017. In fact some of the biggest, worst storms go back to late 1800’s early 1900’s. Michael will probably be added to the list.Which ones were bigger in the 1800’s compared to today. Name them please. post links.
And while you are at it, please explain what you know that the majority of climate scientists and meteorologists don’t seem to know and get wrong, in your opinion.\
-
Again as usual Frumi has a reading comprehension problem. Where in my post did I dispute or contradict any meteorologist or science? I said no such thing nor did I dispute climate change at all. I simply corrected a post that is not true.
One of the worst hurricanes to hit the USA according to Forbes, USA today, and Weather.com was the one that hit Galveston, TX in 1900. There was also another Tx storm in 1886, as well as a couple of storms that hit FL in the early 1900s.
Heres some info in no order on the worst storms to hit the USAHurricane Katrina, Louisiana/Mississippi, [b]2005[/b], 1,200-1,800 deaths, $125 billion in damage
Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rico, [b]2017[/b], 2,975 deaths, $90 billion in damage:
Galveston Hurricane, Texas, [b]1900[/b], 8,000 deaths, $21 million in damage:
Hurricane Harvey, Texas, [b]2017[/b], 89 deaths, $125 billion in damage
Lake Okeechobee Hurricane, Florida, [b]1928[/b], 2,500 deaths, $100 million in damage
Hurricane Sandy, New York/New Jersey, [b]2012[/b], 147 deaths, $65 billion in damage:
Cheniere Caminada Hurricane, Louisiana,[b] 1893[/b], 1,100-1,400 deaths, $5 million in damage
Sea Islands Hurricane, South Carolina/Georgia, [b]1893[/b], 1,000-2,000 deaths, $1 million in damage:
Hurricane Irma, Florida, [b]2017[/b], 129 deaths, $50 billion in damage: Irma
Labor Day Hurricane, Florida, [b]1935,[/b] 408 deaths, $6 million in damage
As one can clearly read and I will cap it for you in case you have another comprehension problem [b]ALL[/b] the biggest storms [b]HAVE NOT[/b] occurred in the last 10 Years.-
It’s one thing to use # of deaths/$ in damage as the metric to base your top 10 worst hurricane list. Those metrics will change based on how structurally sound buildings are made, which typically improve with each decade.
I’d be more interested in the top 10 list based on the STRENGTH of the hurricane (category 3 versus 4 versus 5).-
Im no expert climatologist like the X-rayU tech but…….
There sure are a lot more of them the past 15 years
-
Yep, even in Ixrayu’s list, its interesting how there’s a 70 year gap between the 1935 one and then 2005, and then you get a bunch more all of a sudden in the 21st century.
-
In terms of strength only three Category 5 hurricane landfalls in the continental United States: Labor Day (1935), Camille (1969) and Andrew (1992).
Pressure is often used as a metric to evaluate storm intensity,
1)Florida (Keys) 1935, 26.35 inches
2) Camille (Miss., Louisiana), 1969, 26.84
(Irma, 2017, 26.99*)
3) Katrina (Louisiana, Miss.) 2005, 27.17
4) Andrew (Florida, Louisiana) 1992, 27.23
5) Texas (Indianola), 1886, 27.31
6) Florida (Keys, Texas), 1919, 27.37
7) Florida (Lake Okeechobee), 1928, 27.43
8) Donna (Florida, Eastern Coast), 1960 27.46
9) Florida (Miami, Miss., LA) 1926, 27.46
10) Carla (Texas) 1961, 27.49
Michael when added would fall just in front of Katrina (cbs news Chicago)-
Your simple listing of storms explains exactly what? That there were powerful storms before the 21st Century? Well DUH. But Hurricane Michael is being described as the most powerful storm ever to hit the Florida Panhandle. But true, it was “only” a category 4 storm, not 5.
So what’s your point? You agree that global warming exists and that it is contributing to weather patterns such as more frequent and larger storms or you don’t?
If you are merely arguing that large storms existed before the 1980’s or 1990’s or the 21st Century, OK so what? But you certainly are no clear as to what conclusion you are trying to draw.
Yes, large storms existed before global warming became a concern as contributing to storms. Again, so what is your point other than to quibble of a factoid.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Relating to the other thread where I ‘demanded’ you provide facts for your statements, climate change is something I have been following since the 1970’s and I have been frustrated that at every turn there is an excuse for doing nothing at all and things that are done such as alternate are attacked and dismantled at every turn. See Reagan when he removed the solar panels for the White House in 1981 or AM’s many many statements by deniers or those opposed to moving off of fossil fuels about the impossibility of alternate and renewable energy having any sort of realistic impact to replace fossil fuels. Well, here we are and wind and solar and geothermal are making remarkable inroads in replacing fossil fuels. Include electric cars in that category and batteries that allow electric cars and household storage of energy.
So when you just say, “No” about storms, I ask you for data and you provide none except more lists of significant hurricanes.
“No!” provides no argument or data or substance.
-
e-book available from Scientific American
-
Science isn’t proving a negative. It’s using (unmanipulated) data to support theories. Not models. Data.
It has been hotter before, much hotter, having nothing to do with humans. It’s been colder, nothing to do with humans. During the industrial revolution (read, the CO2 phase) it has heated and cooled. That alone disproves warming. Climate Change means nothing, everyone knows the climate is a cycle. If our CO2 production, which is increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution, doesn’t stop, we should warm ad infinitum.
Do you see how stupid that is?
What’s more likely? Yes, weather cycles. As has been shown. As we know. From data. Not projections. Water vapor is a greater greenhouse gas than CO2. Oxygen and CO2 are odorless and colorless gases required for life.
Pawns like Frumious are stupid on a multifactorial level. Global warming (cooling in the 1970s) is the modern atheists’ end times pseudo-theology. Alarmism for power, something they claim others do all the time, but are experts in themselves.-
The idea that climate change means nothing is child like in its simplicity. The arctic for example is warming twice as fast and nations are already figuring out how to exploit the resources that will be uncovered. Miltaries will be operating there, natural resources will be dig up, seas will rise and flood low areas like the state of Florida. There’s so much more to it than it’s warm outside or today was a cold day. It’s not alarmism, these are things that are happening.
-
Well, as time passes, we can make a difference for our great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, Grand Children. I’m on board with making our environment easier to breath and have plenty of clean water.. who wouldn’t. In the 60’s and 70’s, Pop bottle caps, soda tabs, cigarettes, trash, glass bottles where all over the place. SMOG, smelly plants (Michigan / Texas / all over) where pushing out toxins. To say that we have not improved and gotten better in our country is a farce and a bold exaggeration. In one hand you can’t say that we are superior in technology and then say we haven’t done a good enough job to apply that. Well, are we better off now then… 30 years ago? I think so. Take a look at you own vehicles engine. Are we improving? Yes. It’s funny how the Worlds problem for climate change now becomes the USA issue to correct. It’s not. We need to clean our own yard first before tell others. But yet, we have significantly. China, Indian and many others have a lot of catching up to do. But Dr. Fager is moderately correct. Prior to industrial revolution and the existence of man, the Worlds climate… changed. Why? Because Mother earth is in charge… not man. Fires burned across plains until they ran out fuel. Volcanos, Tsunami’s, Deep Freezes and Disasters changed continents. Which in the future… Yellowstone will make a big one for Humans and the planet maybe in our lifetime. Maybe we should limit the amount of people on the planet and restrict where they live. Are we all gonna Freeze? Burn up? Drown? Choke to death? Will there only be cockroaches left? We don’t know. No one knows, but… I like living in a clean, environment with less trash, better smelling air and fresh water. How about you? Our own cities are becoming trash receptacles because of individual rights and freedoms and our government not making those responsible for their own actions. Sorry to say but Cali / Portland / Arkansas / Louisiana / Michigan and many other states has trash cities. I’m not worried about the climate as much as the filth that lies within our cities borders. Filth is Filth. Do individual rights over play the need to keep a house clean? If so… then it’s a lost cause.
-
here’s the difference. What you’re talking about here happened over billions of years. I live on Lake Erie, I understand at one point that was a glacier.
“Volcanos, Tsunami’s, Deep Freezes and Disasters changed continents.”
However, in our lifetime we might well be seeing Antarctica melt and have war(s) over the uncovered natural resources.
All the while I see these videos of like GOP Barbie Dolls using 5 straws at once because they’re trying to “slay the libtards”. It’s just stupidity for the sake of stupidity. Like do you need the plastic straw more than we need fish in the Ocean (there’s giant plastic bergs floating in the pacific). Even small changes help. Do I need to use a plastic cup at our water water cooler, no I use re-usable tumbler. -
Again, these are changes that took thousands of years to change & yet we see the changes within a couple of decades. The article talks about sea level changes took place over hundreds of years.
How? Why?
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/]https://www.scientificame…awed-the-last-ice-age/[/link]
Roughly 20,000 years ago the great ice sheets that buried much of Asia, Europe and North America stopped their creeping advance. Within a few hundred years sea levels in some places had risen by as much as 10 meters
This freshwater flood filled the North Atlantic and also shut down the ocean currents that conveyed warmer water from equatorial regions northward. The equatorial heat warmed the precincts of Antarctica in the Southern Hemisphere instead, shrinking the fringing sea ice and changing the circumpolar winds. As a resultand for reasons that remain unexplainedthe waters of the Southern Ocean may have begun to release carbon dioxide, enough to raise concentrations in the atmosphere by more than 100 parts per million over millenniaroughly equivalent to the rise in the last 200 years. That [link=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm]CO2 then warmed the globe[/link], melting back the continental ice sheets and ushering in the current climate that enabled humanity to thrive.
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
The idea that climate change means nothing is child like in its simplicity. The arctic for example is warming twice as fast and nations are already figuring out how to exploit the resources that will be uncovered. Miltaries will be operating there, natural resources will be dig up, seas will rise and flood low areas like the state of Florida. There’s so much more to it than it’s warm outside or today was a cold day. It’s not alarmism, these are things that are happening.
And even if you are right, it has nothing to do with man, nor can it be solved by man. That’s the point. No one can argue with climate changing, that’s why they don’t say global cooling (as in the 70s, alarmism then) or global warming anymore. That alone shows the fraud for what it is. Dramatic weather events were ALSO far more common LONG ago — Great SF flood of 1844, far more hurricanes and tornados from 1900-1970. There is no evidence for the narrative, just a lying narrative, as usual. With word salad, as usual.-
Your belief that man is neither a participant in warming nor can man change anything and dramatic weather events were far more common long ago, etc is based on what science exactly?
-
Weather cycles. You still don’t understand the point. The global temperatures have cooled, even in the last 100 years when we’ve been watching things, and your theory says that it should always get hotter because more and more CO2 is being produced. Yet it hasn’t.
Again, your question suggests you never read my posts or understand the philosophy of logic. It’s like me saying to you, “Prove to me God doesn’t exist”
You can’t. It’s a stupid question. Yet I can show you convincing reasons why that’s so (and you might do the same with “warming” or”change” or whatever word you wanna make up as the new slogan) . However, when I respond, “Your theory states that it should never cool, yet it has. Also, it’s been much hotter, having nothing to do with man, having to do with the world untouched by man.”
Both of those are true statements, yet I foresee you won’t answer them (again) and instead call me names or use some absurd logical fallacy like “Lots of people believe it thus it’s true”
Lots of people believed fats and protein were bad for you, too — eat MOAR carbs! Now they know that 50 year run of stupidity is also over, just like warming/change/whatever we call it next will be within a decade.
Somewhere, Al Gore is sweating his fat ass off in a coal fueled mansion, flying all over the world, shaming people — all the while being already proven wrong about 20+ predictions. Absurd, the whole thing. -
I feel like you’re confusing weather with climate. It’s been hotter and colder at times. However, global temps have risen over the past 100 years and the rate the temp is rising is becoming faster.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I feel like you’re confusing weather with climate. It’s been hotter and colder at times. However, global temps have risen over the past 100 years and the rate the temp is rising is becoming faster.
When looking at raw data (not manipulated models) from the Satellites, this is, in fact, false.
But that’s why the make the “models”. The data doesn’t fit. You tell me if that’s a conspiracy. I don’t care. All I know is that it’s not science, which utilizes observations to make conclusions based on hypotheses.
Science has already disproved global warming and AGW. Climate Change is just another word game to distract from the reality that it will not warm ad-finitum = the theory is already wrong and it is [b]known[/b]. -
Manipulated? What is your “un”manipulated data & where is it from?
Oh wait, you won’t be able to produce any “un”manipulated data because your sources don’t exist except in your imagination.
Conspiracies everywhere. The fact that you can prove nothing because no data exists just proves your conspiracies exist! The absence of data showing your side actually proves your point that it’s manipulated.
Key in Vincent Price laugh track here: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
[size=”2″]You brag and feel superior that your ignorance is your strength, F@gan, but ignorance is just being stupid, nothing to be proud of. [/size]
[size=”2″] Gravity does not exist, it’s just natural that things fall [i]down[/i]. Always have & always will. [/size]
[size=”2″] But gravity is the opposite of an alternative fact. Gravity [i][b]exists[/b][/i]![/size]
[size=”2″] [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/magazine/bruno-latour-post-truth-philosopher-science.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ilosopher-science.html[/link] [/size]
[size=”2″]The past decade has seen a precipitous rise not just in anti-scientific thinking last year, only [link=http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-october-2017/2/]37 percent of conservative Republicans[/link] believed in the occurrence of global warning, down from 50 percent in 2008 but in all manner of reactionary obscurantism, from online conspiracy theories to the much-discussed death of expertise. The election of Donald Trump, a president who invents the facts to suit his mood and goes after the credibility of anyone who contradicts him, would seem to represent the culmination of this epistemic rot. Do you believe in reality? is now the question that half of America wants to ask the president and his legion of supporters. [/size]
[size=”2″] In the fall of 2016, the hottest year on record, Latour took a plane from Paris to Calgary, Canada, where he was due to deliver a lecture on the now-obsolete notion of nature. Several hours into the flight, above the Baffin ice sheets to the west of Greenland, he peered out the window. What he saw startled him. That year the North Pole was melting at an accelerated pace. The tundra below, rent with fissures, reminded him of the agonized face from Edvard Munchs painting The Scream. [/size]
[size=”2″] Scientists, he writes, have largely looked at the problem of climate-change denial through the lens of rational empiricism that has governed their profession for centuries; many limit their domain to science, thinking it inappropriate to weigh in on political questions or to speak in an emotional register to communicate urgency. Even though the evidence in support of global warming has long been overwhelming, some scientists continue to believe that the problem of denialism can be solved through ever more data and greater public education. Political scientists, meanwhile, have shown that so-called irrational individuals, especially those who are highly educated, in some cases actually hold onto their opinions more strongly when faced with facts that contradict them. Instead of accusing Trump supporters and climate denialists of irrationality, Latour argues that it is untenable to talk about scientific facts as though their rightness alone will be persuasive. In this respect, Down to Earth extends the sociological analysis that he brought to bear on factory workers in Abidjan and scientists in California to the minds of anti-scientific voters, looking at the ways in which the reception of seemingly universal knowledge is shaped by the values and local circumstances of those to whom it is being communicated. [/size]
[size=”2″] In certain respects, new efforts like the [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/science/march-for-science.html?module=inline]March for Science[/link], which has sought to underscore the indispensable role that science plays (or ought to play) in policy decisions, and groups like 314 Action, which are supporting the campaigns of scientists and engineers running for public office, represent an important if belated acknowledgment from todays scientists that they need, as one of the Marchs slogans put it, to step out of the lab and into the streets. [/size]
[size=”2″] Of course, the risk inherent in this embrace of politics is that climate deniers will seize on any acknowledgment of the social factors involved in science to discredit it even further. In a [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/opinion/a-scientists-march-on-washington-is-a-bad-idea.html?module=inline]New York Times Op-Ed[/link], a coastal geologist argued that the March for Science would reinforce the narrative from skeptical conservatives that scientists are an interest group and politicize their data, research and findings for their own ends. This was what happened in the infamous 2009 incident now known as [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?module=inline]Climategate[/link], when emails to and from scientists at the University of East Anglia, a leading center for climate research in Britain, were hacked, revealing exactly the kinds of messy debates that Latour documented in Laboratory Life. Climate skeptics cited this as proof that the scientists werent really discovering climate change but simply massaging the data to fit their preconceptions. [/size]
[size=”2″] Some might see this discouraging episode as a reason to back away from a more openly pugnacious approach on the part of scientists. Latour does not. As pleasing as it might be to return to a heroic vision of science, attacks like these which exploit our cultures longstanding division between a politics up for debate and a science beyond dispute are not going away. After all, when climatologists speak about the facts in a measured tone, acknowledging their confidence interval, the skeptics claim the mantle of science for themselves, declaring that the facts arent yet certain enough and that their own junk science must also be considered. And yet when prominent climate scientists present their facts with passionate conviction, climate skeptics accuse them of political bias. [/size]
[size=”2″] [i]As the assaults on their expertise have increased, some scientists, Latour told me, have begun to realize that the classical view of science the assumption that the facts speak for themselves and will therefore be interpreted by all citizens in the same way doesnt give them back their old authority. [b]In [link=https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/political-scientist]an interview[/link] last year, Rush Holt Jr., a physicist who served for 16 years in Congress, described the March for Science as a turning point: People, he said, were realizing that they need to defend the conditions in which science can thrive. [/b][/i] [/size]
[size=”2″] Near the top of a winding mountain path, Gaillardet explained to me that some of the questions Latour had been asking the group, in particular about the influence of living organisms on geological processes, were difficult to answer because they forced scientists to reckon with knowledge outside their specialized fields. Part of the trouble with climate change has been that its breadth and complexity defy disciplinary boundaries, making it difficult for specialists to convey the implications of atmospheric patterns from their data alone. What the critical-zone observatories had done, Gaillardet said, was to draw together scientists working in Balkanized disciplines to describe minute environmental changes that more general models of earth-systems science could not detect. [/size]
[size=”2″] Crowded into the little concrete room, we were seeing gravity as Latour had always seen it not as the thing in itself, nor as a mental representation, but as scientific technology allowed us to see it. This, in Latours view, was the only way it could be seen. [b]Gravity, he has argued time and again, was created and made visible by the labor and expertise of scientists, the government funding that paid for their education, the electricity that powered up the sluggish computer, the truck that transported the gravimeter to the mountaintop, the geophysicists who translated its readings into calculations and legible diagrams, and so on. Without this network, the invisible waves would remain lost to our senses. [/b] [/size]
[size=”2″][/size]
[size=”2″] But the detection of gravity is using “manipulated data.” Ergo a conspiratorial lie. Falling down is natural, no invisible forces at play there. And if you see the forces it is only because the “data was manipulated!” [/size]
[size=”2″] So say the anti-science deniers. [/size]
[size=”2″]
[/size]
-
-
-
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
Science isn’t proving a negative. It’s using (unmanipulated) data to support theories. Not models. Data.
It has been hotter before, much hotter, having nothing to do with humans. It’s been colder, nothing to do with humans. During the industrial revolution (read, the CO2 phase) it has heated and cooled. That alone disproves warming. Climate Change means nothing, everyone knows the climate is a cycle. If our CO2 production, which is increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution, doesn’t stop, we should warm ad infinitum.
Do you see how stupid that is?
What’s more likely? Yes, weather cycles. As has been shown. As we know. From data. Not projections. Water vapor is a greater greenhouse gas than CO2. Oxygen and CO2 are odorless and colorless gases required for life.
Pawns like Frumious are stupid on a multifactorial level. Global warming (cooling in the 1970s) is the modern atheists’ end times pseudo-theology. Alarmism for power, something they claim others do all the time, but are experts in themselves.
Atheists made up global warming? Those sneaky bastards.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[b][i]There sure are a lot more of them the past 15 years[/i][/b][b][i] [/i][/b]
[b][i]interesting how there’s a 70 year gap between the 1935 one and then 2005, and then you get a bunch more all of a sudden in the 21st century. [/i][/b]
[b][i]
[/i][/b]
Again you are basing it on the list which reflected damage. There have been very active years long before the turn of the century. The following are some decades and the number of CAT3, 4, or 5 to hit USA according to NOAA
1891 1900 = 8
1911-1920 = 7
1941 1950 = 10
1951-1960 = 8
In fact there was actually a 9 year hurricane drought of a major hurricane hitting the USA because there was a trough along the east coast from 2006-2014. The last major one to hit USA was Wilma in 2005 before the drought.
It seems like a lot because we now have extensive media coverage.
I’m no climate expert either but I do know the claim of the major hurricanes increasing to date is not true.
And what if I am a tech Kpack which you really don’t know to be true? Are you that much of an elitist because you have MD after your name?
-
I understand you have a PhD in climatology
But Pretty much everyone agrees that since 1980 the number of hurricanes and tropical storms are increasing
Kinda weird that coincides with rising ocean temperatures…….. but I will differ to all you internet climatology phds
-
And why the F this is a political issue is beyond me
If you are a Republican than you have to graduate from the Limbaugh school of climatology and be a denier
Just fng stupid
The science is the science
Its not political
-
X-ray tech by day
World renown climatology expert by night
….WTF
-
-
-
All Denier’s arguments seem to consist of, “No” without explanation or simplistic explanations that leave out all the pertinent facts. Yes, the Earth has been warmer and that was before Homo walked the Earth and long before the Industrial Revolution. But that explains exactly what?
Nothing. Nor does it try,
[link=https://skepticalscience.net/pdf/rebuttal/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.pdf]https://skepticalscience….rming-intermediate.pdf[/link][b]What The Science Says:[/b] It is unclear whether global warming is increasing hurricane frequency but there is increasing evidence that warming increases hurricane intensity.
[b]Climate Myth: Hurricanes aren’t linked to global warming[/b]
According to the National Hurricane Center, storms are no more intense or frequent worldwide than they have been since 1850. […] Constant 24-7 media coverage of every significant storm worldwide just makes it seem that way. (Paul Bedard)
Overall, there is a statistically significant upward trend (the horizontal red line). But more significantly, Elsner found weaker hurricanes showed little to no trend while stronger hurricanes showed a greater upward trend. In other words, stronger hurricanes are getting stronger. This means that as sea temperatures continue to rise, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes hitting land will inevitably increase.
[link=https://youtu.be/9mKC49AUVUo]https://youtu.be/9mKC49AUVUo[/link]
[link=http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-professor-kerry-emanuel-writes-new-primer-understanding-climate-science-0122]http://news.mit.edu/2018/…g-climate-science-0122[/link]And despite the fact that more than 90 percent of climate scientists attribute the majority of global mean temperature increase over the last few decades to human activity and warn that continued warming poses risks for mankind, doubt and misconceptions remain pervasive.
Beginning with an overview of the scientific process, the primer provides a short history of climate science through the years and shows how carbon dioxide, a small molecule that makes up about 0.04 percent of the atmosphere by mass, could be responsible for Earths changing climate. Emanuel points to the greenhouse effect, trends in global mean temperature over Earths history, and the mechanisms underlying past climate change. He shows how evidence of certain weather patterns, ice, and ocean extent can be seen in the geologic record and ice cores, indicating past climate conditions, and explains how variables like changing sunlight and orbit cannot account for Earths recent, rapid warming.
I want people to understand that the basic physics of climate have been known for well over 100 years, and to make the point that much of what we know about the climate system is based on simple physics and not as much on huge, complicated models that are often cited as the main basis for concern about climate, Emanuel says. I try to lay out in a simple and compact way the evidence that we are incurring substantial risk, and to talk quantitatively about what the risks are.
The object at this point in history is not so much to persuade people that we climate scientists are right as to persuade them that decarbonizing is in their own economic as well as environmental interest, and that the future of energy, far from being gloomy, is in fact very exciting, he says.[link=https://eapsweb.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Climate_Primer.pdf]https://eapsweb.mit.edu/s…les/Climate_Primer.pdf[/link]
Considerably more than 90% percent of climate scientists attribute the bulk of the increase in global mean temperature over the past three to four decades to the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases that commenced with the Industrial Revolution.1 The great majority of thesescientists hold that continued warming presents significant risks to humankind over the coming centuries.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the majorityof the rapid warming of our planet over the past century has been forced by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.The concentration of carbon dioxidethe most important long-lived greenhouse gasis now greater than it has been
for at least 800,000 years, and if global economic growth continues and nothing is done to curtail emissions, its level at the end of this century will reach values not seen since the Eocene period, 50 million years ago. Pushing the climate system this hard and this fast entails serious risks to human civilization, engendered in rising sea levels andassociated incidence of storm-related coastal flooding,decreasing habitability of tropical and arid regions, increasing acidification of ocean waters and associated risks to marineecosystems, and destabilization of the hydrologic cycle with attendant increases in food and water shortages. The latter is especially worrying because of the propensity for pastfluctuations in food and water supplies to drive civilizational collapse, rapid migrations, and armed conflict.[link=https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/]https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov…arming-and-hurricanes/[/link]
-
Decades of time and effort still being wasted.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/12/nobel-laureate-william-nordhaus-provided-tools-fight-global-warming-its-tragic-conservatives-ignored-him]https://www.washingtonpos…servatives-ignored-him[/link]
The awarding of a Nobel prize in economics this week to William Nordhaus the first economist to develop a model of how the climate and the global economy are linked highlights a tremendous lost opportunity to fight climate change.
Decades ago, Nordhauss work provided a set of tools that should have appealed to market-minded politicians as a way to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Yet American conservatives chose denial instead.
Beginning in the 1970s, Nordhaus demonstrated how a growing economy increases greenhouse gas emissions, which warm the planet, and in turn cause economic damages in sectors as far flung as agricultural production and coastal property. Yet, he observed, the producers of those gases do not pay for the damages they cause.
In 1992, Nordhaus first [link=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__cowles.yale.edu_sites_default_files_files_pub_d10_d1019.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=RAhzPLrCAq19eJdrcQiUVEwFYoMRqGDAXQ_puw5tYjg&r=QJgp7i7FWdJNTjPKtCYvO1IOpb0GDnoXVf9MF9dmmbg&m=5–7o2Vk1uK4-wN74DXfC02E8MF4CDQP5i7YYAm3S_k&s=Q3CzNGluTKr_bIpfZbj3tTXce2kZrW2YURzT4r7YDJM&e=]published[/link] [link=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__sites.google.com_site_williamdnordhaus_dice-2Drice&d=DwMFaQ&c=RAhzPLrCAq19eJdrcQiUVEwFYoMRqGDAXQ_puw5tYjg&r=QJgp7i7FWdJNTjPKtCYvO1IOpb0GDnoXVf9MF9dmmbg&m=5–7o2Vk1uK4-wN74DXfC02E8MF4CDQP5i7YYAm3S_k&s=jXaZ1cw6BvHIr1gRRGhntWD0MTyp2Y5qzr8-BavTnP8&e=]a model[/link] to estimate the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. He used it to argue that a modest carbon tax would yield more in climate benefits than it would cost, estimating that an optimal carbon tax would start at $5 per ton of CO2 in the 1990, and rise over time: It would be near $10 per ton today.
That Nordhaus published this model 26 years ago underscores just how long global warming has been staring us in the face.
Whats more, climate skepticism, one of the most significant and heavily politicized badges of political affiliation, might have been avoided. For decades, the repudiation of scientific expertise has been, with a few [link=https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__citizensclimatelobby.org_climate-2Dsolutions-2Dcaucus_&d=DwMFaQ&c=RAhzPLrCAq19eJdrcQiUVEwFYoMRqGDAXQ_puw5tYjg&r=QJgp7i7FWdJNTjPKtCYvO1IOpb0GDnoXVf9MF9dmmbg&m=5–7o2Vk1uK4-wN74DXfC02E8MF4CDQP5i7YYAm3S_k&s=rckkj1eOImKKVQgHwF10han4ahCG8mWt5vfkiUPnHns&e=]notable exceptions,[/link] all but a requirement for card-carrying Republicans. Who knows how many of the knock-on effects of this head-in-the-sand approach from general anti-intellectualism to the specific fake news rallying cry might have been prevented?-
You have an issue trying to create arguments even at the slightest correction that you do not like. Probably because w 14664 posts it is increasingly apparent that your life evolves around posting on AM. How sad you spend all this time searching and posting articles and other such stuff over a simple correction I made of a statement. Heck you even posted on Father’s Day what a wonderful day you were having. Well if you are having such a wonderful day you still showed us all AM is that more important to post. Get a life!
Go back and read the original post. First post read all the biggest storms are in the last 5-10 years. I simply pointed out they were not as of to date and even mentioned Micheal would be added. You yourself asked for more info.
[i][b]Which ones were bigger in the 1800’s compared to today. Name them please. post links. [/b][/i]Another individual asked for the storms by strength[i][b]. [/b][/i]That is all I did was respond w the info. Then you come back about the lists, one of which you asked for. Then you start on your tirade posting all this other stuff about climate change when I never argued against climate change.
All this just to make your day satisfied with post #14664. It is really sad this is your life. Its a beautiful fall day in the Northeast/midatlantic. Cold front came through. Air is nice and cool. Go outside and look at the leaves. They are not on the trees that much longer. Give yourself something else to do than rage on with a post. I’m heading to the lake house. I will enjoy the outdoors and not worry about AM. Maybe you should try getting out?
-
Thanks for the concern. But you avoid any discussion about global warming so I have to assume you are a denier but just lack the capacity and information to argue why except if liberals are for it you must be against it. Or you believe with Trump that it is a Chinese conspiracy, something also based on no facts. Or is it based on alternate facts.
Enjoy the decrease in humidity, yes it is beautiful but hot weather is here to stay so long as ignorance rules. I am unhappy people like you are giving my children and grandchildren a hotter world with all the issues that come with sudden change like we see in the panhandle since hurricane Michael. Or the refugees from climate change effects.
-
Frumious, do you deny that the global temperatures were ever higher than they are right now? Obviously, that had nothing to do with man made warming. You are the denier of science, in fact, you know nothing of it and don’t care, you are a political hack. Go live with Al Gore on a beachfront he predicted would be flooded by now. LOL, you can’t make up this stuff. It’s sad there are such sheep out there, that believe some sweaty fat ass flying around the world in jets burning petrol and living in mansions bigger than you can dream of. Hysterical that you can’t even be honest about basic things.
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
Frumious, do you deny that the global temperatures were ever higher than they are right now? Obviously, that had nothing to do with man made warming. You are the denier of science, in fact, you know nothing of it and don’t care, you are a political hack. Go live with Al Gore on a beachfront he predicted would be flooded by now. LOL, you can’t make up this stuff. It’s sad there are such sheep out there, that believe some sweaty fat ass flying around the world in jets burning petrol and living in mansions bigger than you can dream of. Hysterical that you can’t even be honest about basic things.
Ah, the old, “Al Gore should be pedaling his bicycle to Europe and Asian conferences & not flying or on a ship unless wind powered. Typical idiotic arguments meant to deflect what you don’t know and can’t discuss in your ignorance.
And why do you suppose temperatures might have been higher sometime in the past, like the Jurassic when CO2 was even high than today’s level. How about continental drift and related volcanism as an effect on CO2?
Tel tell me Mr Russian troll, cigar/F@gan, when was the last time CO2 levels were this high on Earth? Or are you claiming CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
What do you know that would not fit on 1/2 a pamphlet or not even fill a 3 x 5 card in large font from the Deniers Society?
And-
Al gore is the reason were in this mess. As a Democrat espousing climate change it suddenly became this hotly political issue. Its dumb because it has nothing to do with politics. I mean its not like vaccine deniers and flat earthers are politically split. Yet somehow climate change is a left/right topic, makes no sense.
Put your politics aside and listen to the science , for chrissake-
All the vaccine deniers I know are republicans
-
I dont know any flat earthward
-
-
Quote from rozakk
Al gore is the reason were in this mess. As a Democrat espousing climate change it suddenly became this hotly political issue. Its dumb because it has nothing to do with politics. I mean its not like vaccine deniers and flat earthers are politically split. Yet somehow climate change is a left/right topic, makes no sense.
Put your politics aside and listen to the science , for chrissake
it’s not political, the left made it political
You can’t even tell me the theory of AGW or climate change. If you could you’d realize that you’ve been duped, but the dissonance won’t allow that.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from Dr. ****er
Frumious, do you deny that the global temperatures were ever higher than they are right now? Obviously, that had nothing to do with man made warming. You are the denier of science, in fact, you know nothing of it and don’t care, you are a political hack. Go live with Al Gore on a beachfront he predicted would be flooded by now. LOL, you can’t make up this stuff. It’s sad there are such sheep out there, that believe some sweaty fat ass flying around the world in jets burning petrol and living in mansions bigger than you can dream of. Hysterical that you can’t even be honest about basic things.
Ah, the old, “Al Gore should be pedaling his bicycle to Europe and Asian conferences & not flying or on a ship unless wind powered. Typical idiotic arguments meant to deflect what you don’t know and can’t discuss in your ignorance.
And why do you suppose temperatures might have been higher sometime in the past, like the Jurassic when CO2 was even high than today’s level. How about continental drift and related volcanism as an effect on CO2?
Tel tell me Mr Russian troll, cigar/F@gan, when was the last time CO2 levels were this high on Earth? Or are you claiming CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
What do you know that would not fit on 1/2 a pamphlet or not even fill a 3 x 5 card in large font from the Deniers Society?
And
I stopped trying to reason you after your 10,000th post. Logic doesn’t work with those with low T-
Yes, thats clearly it. Consensus of 99% of scientific community is due to low T. Brilliant
-
cigar/F@gan posting his, “NO!, NO!, NO!” frequently and over multiple topics suddenly.
He’s worried.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes because all the data showing global temperatures rising year after year in the past 10-20 years is made up. All a vast conspiracy. As are ice caps melting.
As someone in the field of science, medicine no less, you should be ashamed of yourself.
-
Quote from hey
Yes because all the data showing global temperatures rising year after year in the past 10-20 years is made up. All a vast conspiracy. As are ice caps melting.
As someone in the field of science, medicine no less, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Except that you don’t even know anything about the data, the quality of the data, what DATA is, what projections and models are, or what the “science is” since global warming isn’t science, nor is the term climate change, which no one ever disputed. You haven’t researched any of it, and you haven’t been skeptical of it, you know nothing about the scientific method, just politics and “experts” you listen to.
You call people names who disagree with you. And you still can’t explain why cooling has happened in the 20th century, and why warming happened centuries ago, even higher temperatures than we have now. Why? You don’t want to admit that your tribe makes no sense and that weather patterns are cyclical. You want politicians you believe in to get away with more lying and power schemes, while they live burning more fossil fuels than you could ever dream of. It’s quite sad.
-
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
I stopped trying to reason you after your 10,000th post. Logic doesn’t work with those with low T
You cannot make an intelligent argument if your life depended on it, that’s the real reason you post nothing of merit.
-
[b][i]unhappy people like you are giving my children and grandchildren a hotter world with all the issues that come with sudden change like we see in the panhandle since hurricane Michael.[/i][/b]
[b][i]
[/i][/b]
Oh so now your rage is going to accuse certain individuals of causing the world to get hotter. I am not unhappy at all. How exactly is it only people like me? Oh I know it must be the 30 factories I own, the 2000 acres where my cattle roam. I did drive my SUV this weekend. My wife is going out later she will drive her SUV. Or was it the fire I burned in the fireplace to take the chill out the air?
[b][i]Typical idiotic arguments meant to deflect what you don’t know and can’t discuss in your ignorance.[/i][/b]
[b][i]
[/i][/b]
How did he deflect? You wrote the above accusing me as one of the culprits but then dismissed the post on Al Gore as idiotic. You accused me of making the world hotter for your progeny yet dismiss Al Gore who has a much bigger carbon foot print than I ever will. You only want certain truths to apply and when other facts are pointed out to you it is easier for you to rage and accuse.
Back to the original hurricane post. Here is another fact for you. The number of major hurricanes to hit the east coast from 1915 1965 was 19. The next 50 years 1966-2016 it was 7. Only time will tell the next 50 years. DISCLAIMER ALERT: I did not own 30 factories and 2000 acres for my cows from 1915-1965.
-
The only side making absolutist arguments are the denial side, your side. There is no one, including your hobgoblin of little minds, Al Gore, making any absolutist arguments about not ever driving SUVs or any combustible engine vehicle, no one who is stating no one should ever fly in a plane using fossil fuels, no one who says no wood and charcoal fires ever for cooking or heating, no one who advocates closing factories unless and until factories don’t use any fossil fuels, etc. These are all fantasy straw man arguments made by you and fellow deniers, no one believes the arguments except maybe you & your fellow deniers. I don’t care about your cows, I’m not a Vegan.
You make empty arguments.
So let’s speak of actual facts & not fakery arguments with no merit like, “Look! it’s snowing outside & here is a snowball” in January. So far your sole argument besides “Al Gore!” is that Category 5 hurricanes existed before say the year 2000. Did anyone claim otherwise? Please let me know as I know of no one who has claimed that.
That’s it. That is your sole argument. Ignore everything else happening, there have been category 5 hurricanes before. That’s your argument. There are no predictions about where hurricanes hit land regarding global warming so your statement is an oxymoron. What had been said about hurricane Michael was that it was the most powerful to hit the Florida Panhandle, nothing else and it was [i]only[/i] a Cat 4. Yet it did cause deaths as far inland and north as Virginia due to flooding. But that’s not noteworthy.
What is your argument because to say there have been storms before is a big nothing. As if anyone, and I mean anyone, ever argued otherwise. What is your belief then? No global warming exists? If it does exist it is all natural only and man did not, cannot have any influence? How not? over 90% of scientists agree there is warming and it is anthropogenic to a large influential degree.
What is your argument then? What are your facts? Warming is a conspiracy or just that over 90% of scientists are simply mistaken and the other less than 10% really know the real truth? It’s a liberal conspiracy in order to do what again for what gain for whom? It’s a Chinese conspiracy? What? I’m at a total loss to follow what you are saying and your points about your position.
-
Out lead Scientist-In-Chief data on global warming hoax.
[link=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump]Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump[/link]
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.
2:15 PM – 6 Nov 2012
AND:
I think somethings happening. Somethings changing and it will change back again…Im not denying climate change, but it could very well go back.
I dont think theres a hoax. I do think theres probably a difference. But I dont know that its man-made.
Look, scientists also have a political agenda. Youd have to show me the scientists because they have a very big political agenda.
Conclusion? “It’s a hoax. Well, it’s not a hoax but it’s not anthropogenic. But scientists have a political agenda.”
Covers all bases here with 3rd statement circling back to 1st.
The funny part in my mind is that all of us on AM are in a science field, radiology and medicine. All of us have had science courses whether physicians or techs or other related jobs like nursing and physicists. And yet a good portion (a majority?) of AM posters believe that warming does not exist or is a hoax perpetrated by scientists for…political reasons (like what?) or monetary as if scientists could make a hell of a lot more $ by arguing with the deniers if mercenary reasons were the point.
So why are so many AM posters anti-science? Isn’t that an oxymoronic position considering our field? Science is a lie? And if 90% of scientists agree that alone proves they are lying?
No consideration that the denial people are the ones arguing for political and monetary reasons?“The climate was warmer in the past.” Yes, and sea levels were higher also. Kansas could be the Kansas Sea. The world of the dinosaurs looked very different then today’s. Yes, it was warmer but it was also wetter.
[link=http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/02files/Global_Warming_002.html]http://www.thelivingmoon….lobal_Warming_002.html[/link]
[link=http://oceansofkansas.com/UNSM.html]http://oceansofkansas.com/UNSM.html[/link]
-
-
-
-
Quote from CudaRad
…Yes. It’s funny how the Worlds problem for climate change now becomes the USA issue to correct. It’s not. We need to clean our own yard first before tell others. But yet, we have significantly. China, Indian and many others have a lot of catching up to do.
First, allegedly we have been the world leader & now we are stepping back to let China take the lead? We have been the world’s biggest polluter for a very long time now because we exported our jobs to China they have become #1 in pollution. So now since we have given up our leadership position we will sit on our hands until China becomes the world’s leader?
[link=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/how-us-carbon-pollution-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world.html]https://www.cnbc.com/2017…rest-of-the-world.html[/link]
The world wants a leader but we are suddenly too timid thanks to Republicans who are giving our world leadership away for peanuts & tax breaks.
Quote from CudaRad
But Dr. ****er is moderately correct. Prior to industrial revolution and the existence of man, the Worlds climate… changed. Why? Because Mother earth is in charge… not man. Fires burned across plains until they ran out fuel. Volcanos, Tsunami’s, Deep Freezes and Disasters changed continents. Which in the future… Yellowstone will make a big one for Humans and the planet maybe in our lifetime. Maybe we should limit the amount of people on the planet and restrict where they live. Are we all gonna Freeze? Burn up? Drown? Choke to death? Will there only be cockroaches left? We don’t know. No one knows, but… I like living in a clean, environment with less trash, better smelling air and fresh water. How about you? Our own cities are becoming trash receptacles because of individual rights and freedoms and our government not making those responsible for their own actions. Sorry to say but Cali / Portland / Arkansas / Louisiana / Michigan and many other states has trash cities. I’m not worried about the climate as much as the filth that lies within our cities borders. Filth is Filth. Do individual rights over play the need to keep a house clean? If so… then it’s a lost cause.
Uh, I’m not following you here at all. First thing, what do you mean before the Industrial Revolution the world’s climate changed? You mean the Ice Age several millennia ago? You mean a warmer Earth say during the Jurassic Age? OK, but the last Ice Age was millennia ago and the Jurassic Age was 200 million years ago. But carbon was much higher during the Jurassic Age and much lower during the last Ice Age. But let’s see, the last Ice Age was 20,000 years ago. Carbon is definitely involved in temperature do you agree or not? But you don’t explain how the changes happened or especially how long before the changes happened. Did the ice form within a couple of decades? How long did it take for the Ice Age to be over? Was the last Ice Age over within a couple of decades?
Around 20,000 years ago, the atmospheric CO2 concentration during the last Ice Age was distinctly lower than in the following warm period. Measurements from Antarctic ice cores showed this already two decades ago. An international team of glaciologists thereafter looked even further back in time. The climate researchers found that this close connection between carbon dioxide and temperature has existed over the past 800,000 years: with low CO2 concentrations during the Ice Ages and higher CO2 values during warm periods.
The NASA chart shows carbon levels never going above a certain level over 400,000 years yet today carbon is much higher than measured in that 400,000 year level.
[link=https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/]https://climate.nasa.gov/…ise-of-carbon-dioxide/[/link]Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth’s atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels [link=http://climate.nasa.gov/news/916]surpassed 400 ppm[/link] for the first time in recorded history. This [link=http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/history_legacy/keeling_curve_lessons]recent relentless rise[/link] in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.
The changes in the past took place over centuries and millennia, not over decades yet today we have very dramatic changes over a couple of decades, less that 10 decades. How did that happen? Why suddenly so fast when int he past it happened much more slowly?
You need to ask those questions to determine why things are different today than hundreds of thousands of years ago or millions of years ago. How fast did changes occur in the past compared to how quickly they are happening to day?
-
Curious Comrade F@gan, are you directly related to Trofim Lysenko?
And have you ever taken a science course at all? Any kind of science? Not the hard stuff involving math obviously, just something?
-
Of course, that’s why I don’t believe in “warming” as there is no basis in science for it. I have told you why. You just post things like NY times articles about gravity and other ad hominem attacks. Notice, that’s every post you make. You can’t tell me why there is no warming and why projections/model are required to keep the theory “alive.”
Weird you call me comrade, since you support soviet ideas actively on this board, in nearly all threads. You are obsessed with power and resort to forums and threads to feel good about the fact that you have none in real life, but think you do here.-
Well Mr “Low T” F@gan, you don’t say you’ve ever taken a science course in school much less understand science.
As for gravity, you don’t understand the article at all, do you F@gan. You haven’t a clue what it is about except it mentions something about climate science but you can’t quite figure out the context at all. You are stumped what gravity has to do with climate science and this French philosopher.-
You don’t ever answer questions, just call names and distract.
I don’t think you’ve ever tried to argue something on its merits. You just distract, like the chaotic leaders and system you follow. Lemming like. -
What a shock! Trump is rejecting his own climate study and its conclusions and warnings.
The Trump White House, which has defined itself by a willingness to dismiss scientific findings and propose its own facts, on Friday issued a scientific report that directly contradicts its own climate-change policies.
The administration is widely expected to discount or ignore the reports detailed findings of the economic strain caused by climate change, even as it continues to cut environmental regulations, while opponents use it to mount legal attacks against the very administration that issued the report.
The [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/climate/us-climate-report.html?module=inline]1,656-page National Climate Assessment[/link], which is required by Congress, is the most comprehensive scientific study to date detailing the effects of global warming on the United States economy, public health, coastlines and infrastructure. It describes in precise detail how the warming planet will wreak hundreds of billions of dollars of damage in coming decades.
In publishing the assessment, White House officials made a calculation that Mr. Trumps core base of supporters most likely would not care that its findings are so at odds with the presidents statements and policies.
That view is supported by Steven J. Milloy, a member of Mr. Trumps E.P.A. transition team who runs the website junkscience.com, which is aimed at casting doubt on the established science of human-caused climate change. We dont care, he said.
-
America attends the climate meeting in Poland to announce the miracle energy of coal! And loud mocking laughter ensues.
America, home of the brain dead neo Luddites, Trump and his supporters.
President Trumps top White House adviser on energy and climate stood before the crowd of some 200 people on Monday and tried to burnish the image of coal, the fossil fuel that powered the industrial revolution and is now a major culprit behind the climate crisis world leaders are meeting here to address.
Mocking laughter echoed through the conference room. A woman yelled, These false solutions are a joke! And dozens of people erupted into chants of protest.
The protest was a piece of theater, and so too was the United States public embrace of coal and other dirty fuels at an event otherwise dedicated to saving the world from the catastrophic effects of climate change. The standoff punctuated the awkward position the American delegation finds itself in as career bureaucrats seek to advance the Trump administrations agenda in an international arena aimed at cutting back on fossil fuels.
This is regrettable, as some of the best climate change scientists in the world are American. A lot of the data feeding the science comes from U.S. institutions and platforms. However, the White House policy statements have forced their negotiators to take this stance, Fuller said.
-
The world is cooling and will continue to cool.
[b]WITHIN 15 years [/b]it will be more obvious than ever that “global warming” is/was/will be a fraud.
I knew it a long time ago, but it’s funny that not only do people not care or trust the politicians (see France), they clearly want nothing to do with the lies anymore, which will become more and more obvious.
Solar cycles, you hack moron. It’s that simple.-
Based on what evidence? It’s winter in America?
[b]Duh. solar cycles? What is the cycle of solar cycles? And the last warming cycle was when & what glaciers melted and the Arctic passageway was open when? And has opened every how many years each cycle of how long?[/b]
Zero knowledge seasoned with a heavy dose of fantasy. Ignorance. -
BTW, these are simple questions. You should easily be able to answer & make your case. Assuming you read something having to do with science.
-
So, Donald believes in Climate change but also knows that the climate will “change back.” I forgot the Twit said this.
Im not denying climate change. But it could very well go back. You know, were talkin about over a millions of years.
So we all will see glaciers form again in a million years. Donnie knows.
[blockquote] Theres no question. There is something there man-made or not. I mean, theres something there. And its going to go, and its going to go back and forth. But there is something there.
[/blockquote] Then, on Oct. 16, in an [link=https://www.apnews.com/a28cc17d27524050b37f4d91e087955e]interview[/link] with the Associated Press, Trump once again said he agrees the climate changes, but said that it goes back and forth, back and forth.
Hmmm, “Back and forth?” Like he markets going “up and down.” Stellar forecasting there. All we have to do is wait around a million years.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Many glaciers are thickening, more solid. You don’t even know what confirmation bias is, Mr. Pseudoscience
There is no such thing as AGW, never has been. Even if there were, it actually has benefited humans around the world multiple times over. When it cools, which is coming even more and has already arrived, your silly theory will be an obvious crackpot of history. But then you’ll change the terms again. But global food supplies will make sure no one forgets your idiocy.
And the US emits much less than France and German, those who “Agreed” with the Paris accords, lol, now their people are rioting because they know it’s a political farce. So the american economy outdoes the other idiot countries with their Dem Socialist hacks, without even agreeing to silly pledges. What a world we live in, I think you should go to the middle east for a haircut, since all cultures and people are equal. They’ll laugh at you, or much much worse. But keep believing the hype, that’ll do you good when you aren’t in the great civilization anymore, right? lol-
The glaciers are thickening? Like the ones that keep breaking off and floating away?
-
You wouldn’t know, because of the confirmation bias you and the people you read/watch/listen to have no idea of … yet you claim to know “science”
You probably also think Bill Nye is smarter, more well educated, and trustworthy than Richard Lindzen. LOL-
So post something by Lindzen that upholds your denial beliefs. Very apparently you don’t understand a thing, just parrot “NO!” from deniers.
But his ex-MIT colleagues give him a fact-check & he fails. So who needs Bill Nye when you have actual climate scientists saying he’s dead wrong.
[size=”0″] [/size]
[link=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump]https://insideclimatenews…ndzen-mit-donald-trump[/link]
Richard Lindzen, an outspoken climate contrarian and retired Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, sent a letter last month to President [link=https://insideclimatenews.org/tags/Donald-Trump]Donald Trump[/link] urging him to pull the United States out of the United Nations’ [link=https://insideclimatenews.org/topic/climate-change]climate change[/link] regime because global climate action is “not scientifically justified.”
After MIT’s climate researchers and faculty found out, [link=http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump]they wrote their own open letter to the president[/link], setting the record straight.
[b]”As [Lindzen’s] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,” said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.[/b]
The MIT staff addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen’s letter, including his assertion that “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”
“The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones,” they wrote. “These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind.”
A petition accompanying Lindzen’s letter was signed by [link=https://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Climate%20denier%20Paris%20withdrawal%20petition.pdf]300 other people[/link]. Lindzen described the signatories as “eminent scientists and other qualified individuals” in his letter. A review of the names by the Guardian, however, revealed [link=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/27/just-who-are-these-300-scientists-telling-trump-to-burn-the-climate]few biology, chemistry, climate, earth and physics scientists[/link]. Many are well-known climate contrarians and deniers. They include [link=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24022015/willie-soon-too-much-ice-really-bad-polar-bears]Willie Soon[/link], an aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; [link=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08092016/climate-change-denial-northeast-public-power-association-neppa-solar-and-wind-steve-goreham-global-warming]Steve Goreham[/link] of the Heartland Institute, an industry backed organization that denies climate science; and William Briggs, a statistician at Cornell University who questions climate models.
[b]”In stark contrast to Lindzen’s letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system,” said [link=http://eaps4.mit.edu/faculty/Emanuel/]Kerry Emanuel[/link], an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.[/b]
[b]The science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientist also [link=http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/annotated-lindzen-letter.jpg]annotated the letter [/link]to point out its errors.[/b]
So make an argument. Parrot Lindzen if you wish but make an actual argument, not a Monty Python skit.
[link=https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=monty+python+the+argument&view=detail&mid=5DE2856BEC76A65896CA5DE2856BEC76A65896CA&FORM=VIRE]monty python the argument[/link]
The fact is that YOU don’t understand a thing, cigar/F@gan.-
You didn’t make an argument. You quote a guy saying things, not providing science or even credentials like Lindzen’s.
-
I believe the usual form of a “discussion” is that you brought up his name so you start arguing his rationale, not me. Don’t be intellectually lazy and ignorant, make your argument that’s more than name dropping. You just brought up his name saying Nye isn’t as smart as Lindzen. If I didn’t already know who Lindzen was I’d have no idea what you were talking about except to assume Lindzen was a denier since you are a denier but I would not know Lindzen does not think CO2 has anything to do with warming or that he believes that warming doesn’t even exist.
I am not going to make your arguments and counter-arguments for you.
Actually I’m shocked you haven’t brought up your example of genius, Trump and his argument that he believes the climate is warming but it will “return” to what was normal. If we just wait around for a million years or so.
Now that’s genius!
-
-
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
You wouldn’t know, because of the confirmation bias you and the people you read/watch/listen to have no idea of … yet you claim to know “science”
You probably also think Bill Nye is smarter, more well educated, and trustworthy than Richard Lindzen. LOL
I don’t claim to know glacier science but I believe the people who study glaciers and provide data. Like the USGS or the National snow and Ice center. I doubt Bill Nye has ever pulled a core from a glacier and I don’t know about Richard Lindzen. Maybe he’s studied glaciers. LOL.
-
-
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
Many glaciers are thickening, more solid. You don’t even know what confirmation bias is, Mr. Pseudoscience
Which glaciers and where? Alaska? The Arctic? South America? Alps? USA & Canada? Africa? These are all diminishing and disappearing if not already gone.
Which ones? I’d like you to point out a few that are growing. over the LONG TERM please, not a single year’s growth that’s an anomaly.
-
Quote from Dr. ****er
And the US emits much less than France and German, those who “Agreed” with the Paris accords, lol, now their people are rioting because they know it’s a political farce. So the american economy outdoes the other idiot countries with their Dem Socialist hacks, without even agreeing to silly pledges. What a world we live in, I think you should go to the middle east for a haircut, since all cultures and people are equal. They’ll laugh at you, or much much worse. But keep believing the hype, that’ll do you good when you aren’t in the great civilization anymore, right? lol
Wrong! Wrong and wrong.
From Forbes.
LOLOLOLOL
TEE HEE TEE HEE TEE HEE
[attachment=0]
-
Great job, idiot, you don’t even know that it’s 2018, almost 2019, now. Again, you’re wrong, but you prove that confirmation bias and laziness is strong in you
[link=https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/us-reduces-emissions-while-paris-parties-emissions-grow]https://www.heartland.org…parties-emissions-grow[/link]
“World leaders castigated President Donald Trump when he withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, saying it was a bad deal for America. Activists labeled him a climate villain. Yet despite Trumps decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement and instead prioritize robust economic growth in United States, America experienced the largest year-over-year reduction in carbon emissionsa 0.5 percent declineof any advanced nation. U.S. emissions fell for the third consecutive year, without government restrictions on fossil fuel use. On emission reductions, actions should speak louder than words. Trumps energy policies, which elicit scorn from climate activists and many world leaders, should draw praise.”
We beat them, you still scream chicken little about your friends across the pond, whose leaders are liars just like you. Great job.
[link=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/08/21/whos_the_cleanest_of_them_all_137850.html]https://www.realclearpoli…f_them_all_137850.html[/link]
Facts are a bitch. You lose. Again.
-
Curious, what’s your argument F@gan/Incel? That the US is the lowest producer of emissions in the world? Or had the highest drop per capita compared to other countries in the world?
You are throwing data meant to confuse. The US is still one of the highest emitters of pollution in the world. Neither article you posted disputes that single fact, they only argue the US has dropped in emissions more than most countries in rhe world. And why is that you amy ask?
What your simple-minded posts dont’ show is the issue is a bit complex.
[link=https://phys.org/news/2018-12-strong-growth-global-co2-emissions.html]https://phys.org/news/201…bal-co2-emissions.html[/link]
The new data for 2018, published today simultaneously in the journals [i]Nature[/i], [i]Earth System Science Data[/i] and [i]Environmental Research Letters[/i], reveals that [link=https://phys.org/tags/global+emissions/]global emissions[/link] from burning fossil fuels are expected to reach 37.1 billion tonnes of CO2 in 2018.
CO2 emissions have now risen for a second year, after three years of little-to-no growth from 2014 to 2016. The rise this year is projected at 2.7 per cent (+1.8 to +3.7 per cent). In 2017 it was 1.6 per cent.
[b]The 10 biggest emitters in 2018 are China, the US, India, Russia, Japan, Germany, Iran, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Canada. The EU as a whole region of countries ranks third.[/b]Looks like we are #2 emitter in the whole world still.
-
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-emissions-reached-an-all-time-high-in-2018/]https://www.scientificame…all-time-high-in-2018/[/link]
For the time being, the world appears to be settling into an average emissions growth rate of about 1 percent per year, Peters noted, although it varies from year to year. The past two years have seen slightly higher growth, and 2014 through 2016 saw less.
The report attributes the three-year pause largely to declines in coal use in China, which was temporarily investing less into energy-intensive construction projects, and the United States, thanks to a shift in natural gas, solar and wind power. Now those days are over.
U.S. emissions are projected to grow by about 2.5 percent in 2018, despite an otherwise downward trendand continued declines for coalin large part due to growth in oil and natural gas and a year marked by unusually severe winter and summer weather. That seems to have spiked emissions from heat and electricity.
-
Looks like 2018 was a bigly spike in US emissions. And looks like the US is a bigly-er emitter than the EU as a whole which means more than Germany or France as Heartland & other deniers allege.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…missions-increase.html[/link]
Americas carbon dioxide emissions rose by 3.4 percent in 2018, the biggest increase in eight years, according to [link=https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018]a preliminary estimate published Tuesday.[/link]
Strikingly, the sharp uptick in emissions occurred even as a [link=https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/48671375#_ga=2.136873456.132703944.1546890383-789956732.1546890383]near-record number of coal plants around the United States retired last year[/link], illustrating how difficult it could be for the country to make further progress on climate change in the years to come, particularly as the Trump administration pushes to roll back federal regulations that limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The estimate, by the research firm Rhodium Group, pointed to a stark reversal. Fossil fuel emissions in the United States have fallen significantly since 2005 and declined each of the previous three years, in part because of a boom in cheap natural gas and renewable energy, which have been rapidly displacing dirtier coal-fired power.
Yet even a steep drop in coal use last year wasnt enough to offset rising emissions in other parts of the economy.
But, just as important, as the United States economy grew at a strong pace last year, emissions from factories, planes and trucks soared. And there are few policies in place to clean those sectors up.
[link=https://cleantechnica.com/2018/12/13/us-co2-emissions-increase-by-3-in-2018-says-trumps-own-administration/]https://cleantechnica.com…ps-own-administration/[/link]
The United States Energy Information Administration has published new numbers this week which show energy-related CO2 emissions for 2018 will increase by 3%, undermining its own fragile attempts to highlight 2017s drop in CO2 emissions against the likely increase in 2018 emissions that has been evident throughout the year.
According to Ken Bossong with the SUN DAY Campaign, the likelihood of an increase to CO2 emissions in 2018 is not a complete surprise, and the EIA has been hinting at such in its Short-Term Energy Outlooks (STEOs) all year though it has done a good job of failing to publicize its findings in the face of a President more than willing to tout other figures as proof his countrys emissions are on the decline.
Wonder how Heartland & the deniers will spin this? They will likely ignore it as inconvenient facts & spin their own alternative facts.
-
Deny the climate is warming but reality always interferes with fantasy. Miami, Charleston, Boston, Norfolk, Annapolis, Wilmington and many other places seeing flooding in sunny weather. It used to be just Venice you heard about. How about those of us who remember freezing lakes in the winter that don’t freeze anymore? Tundra in the north? What was that show, Ice Road Truckers where trucks sink? And that show was relatively new, 2007? The Northern Route is a reality now.
How warm is your area of the US? How are your lakes and ponds doing this summer for swimming? Any bacteria increases making it dangerous even fatal to swim?
[link=https://www.wzzm13.com/article/life/pets/a-dog-died-after-swimming-in-a-texas-lake-should-michigan-pet-owners-be-concerned/69-90357d2b-d405-47fb-9b97-418a69574917]https://www.wzzm13.com/ar…47fb-9b97-418a69574917[/link]
[link=https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article233778467.html]https://www.newsobserver…./article233778467.html[/link]
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america]https://www.washingtonpos…climate-change-america[/link]
Nah, it’s happened before. Pretty common in history. Stories of dinosaurs dying of swimming in bacteria lakes in summer have always been common.-
these 2 Norfolk, Annapolis are actually a large concern for our Navy.
-
[link=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm[/link]
The Japanese know it’s a crock of sht too, man doesn’t do anything compared to the Sun, atmosphere, and the cycles that you all have ignored. Yes, the end of the world is coming, sure. Sure thing, you religious zealots, lol-
Really????? Your article starts with your “proof” of 780,000 years ago???
When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago,…
Maybe you can explain what you THINK (oxymoron there) the article explains about today’s warming?
Get off the psychotropic drugs. You are a total idiot. -
World-wide demonstration against doing nothing about anthropogenic climate deterioration.
About time! Even if it is very young people embarrassing the adults.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/climate/global-climate-strike.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…al-climate-strike.html[/link]
Anxious about their future on a hotter planet and angry at world leaders for failing to arrest the crisis, masses of young people poured into the streets on every continent on Friday for a day of global climate protests. Organizers estimated the turnout to be around four million in thousands of cities and towns worldwide.
It was the first time that children and young people had demonstrated to demand climate action in so many places and in such numbers around the world.
They turned out in force in Berlin, where the police estimated 100,000 participants, with similar numbers in Melbourne and London. In New York City, [link=https://twitter.com/NYCMayor/status/1175118915317436417]the mayors office estimated[/link] that 60,000 people marched through the narrow streets of Lower Manhattan, while organizers put the total at 250,000. By the dozens in some places, and by the tens of thousands in others, young people demonstrated in cities like Manila, Kampala and Rio de Janeiro. A group of scientists rallied in Antarctica.
You had a future, and so should we, demonstrators chanted as they marched through New York City.
Then, We vote next.
[b]the United States, which has produced more emissions than any country since the start of the industrial age, and which is now [link=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?module=inline]rolling back a suite of environmental regulations[/link] under President Donald Trump. Organizers said there were demonstrations in all 50 United States.[/b]
Tens of thousands of protesters marched through the streets of San Francisco, chanting, Green New Deal, make it real, and carrying signs that read The sea is rising, so must we.
There is no Planet B.
-
Thought I would share some links.
[link=https://globalclimatestrike.net/]https://globalclimatestrike.net/[/link]
And under what do we want:
[link=https://www.peoplesdemands.org/]https://www.peoplesdemands.org/[/link]
Some interesting concepts about “climate justice” what does that mean?
[b]4. [/b]Commit to policies that embrace agro-ecological practices and food sovereignty in place of Climate Smart Agriculture.
[b]5. [/b]Facilitate and support non-market approaches to climate action.
[b]6. [/b]Adopt a technology framework that recognizes the importance of endogenous and indigenous technologies and innovations in addressing climate change, and enables developing countries and communities to develop, access, and transfer environmentally sound, socially acceptable, gender responsive and equitable climate technologies.
[b]7. [/b]Respect and enable non-corporate, community-led climate solutions that recognize the traditional knowledge, practices, wisdom, and resilience of indigenous peoples and local communities, and protect rights over their lands and territories.
[b]8. [/b]Ensure participatory and transparent assessment of all proposed climate technologies and reject barriers to technology access and transfer such as intellectual property rights.
and
Honor climate finance obligations to developing countries[b]1. [/b]Replenish the Green Climate Fund to ratchet up climate action to stay below 1.5 degree Celsius global temperature rise, and fulfill developed countries commitment to provide $100 billion a year by 2020.
[b]2.[/b] Provide adequate and real money (in addition to Overseas Development Assistance) to scale up adaptation and ensure protection to climate migrants and those impacted by climate change.
[b]3.[/b] Developed countries must make new concrete pledges of public climate finance accompanied by a definite timeline for delivery.
[b]4.[/b] Commit to climate reparations to those most affected but least responsible for climate change.
Seems kind of pipe-dreamy to me.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Heartland? Now there’s an independent group without an agenda!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA …
You still haven’t answered any questions, you only make tangential diversions.
-
Haven’t worked on all the items you’ve posted but as for pipe-dreamy, consider the options. No, the world will not end but the world we give to our children due to our unwillingness to change will be a lot different than it is now & all the changes will hardly be good before the world settles into some sort of equilibrium. But then that equilibrium also depends on when we decide to stop burning all the carbon sequestered in the ground & putting it in the atmosphere.
Our weather/climate has already changed from when I was a kid. Winters a a lot warmer and summers are even warmer. This summer has been the hottest ever on record. What of changes to local climates? You can’t dismiss that. Agriculture? Flooding? Sea Level rising? This is going to cause a lot of migration by people. The Syrian War was caused in part due to the change in their weather & look how those refugees have been accepted with open arms.
How about insects? Many are surviving warmer winters to kill large sections of forest.
There will be more.
The military is trying to prepare for a different climate and what it will mean for American security. They know something many Americans are ignoring.
Climate warming was known in the 1980’s and before. Bush I decided to have more studies so that dependency on oil would not be interrupted even though oil companies in this time agreed that burning fossil fuels were the primary mover of climate change. A simple carbon tax would have done much to address the issue before global temps rose significantly. Reagan removed solar panels on the White House in his support for fossil fuel industries.
For 4 decades now we’ve known the problem but we decided to twiddle and twaddle instead.
And our children will thank us.
So you don’t like the list posted by your link. What proposals do you then support? Or you don’t accept that the climate has been made warmer to to burning fossil fuels?
So the 1st question that determines what the next question is, is the climate warming, yes or no.
-
Most peoples willingness to support something generally comes down to how much is being asked. And this sounds pretty expensive.
[link=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W[/link]-
Squirrel
WTF
Im not going to answer because Im afraid
Squirrel
-
“Squirrel
WTF
Im not going to answer because Im afraid
Squirrel”
I do accept the climate is warming. I fully reject this “Green deal” and consider it a hijacking of the economy by socialists.-
Thank you
-
My feeling is the green new deal has a lot of good things in it but its just ridiculous to somehow claim this is fiscally possible in a short time period
The green new deal should have been rolled out as if it were an eventual wish list with no or limited time constraints
I think its obvious to most that we need to get to point B from here but to put unrealistic time and cost constraints on it just makes it useless politically charged argument
-
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
I do accept the climate is warming. I fully reject this “Green deal” and consider it a hijacking of the economy by socialists.
OK, so I read you do accept the planet is warming. Due to what? Anthropogenic causes like burning fossil fuels or just some “natural” process? Sunspots? Clouds? The sun getting hotter?
Please explain.
Pardon my direct statement, but please leave out the “Socialist” BS. That is only inflammatory and IMHO, not showing knowledge of what Socialism is vs anything else. It is not an intelligent argument, it is meant only to misdirect. You don’t like the Green New Deal or its authors, fine, so what is a plan other than twiddling?
-
Couple points hopefully not too off topic
1. Some large utilities have already set plans to eliminate coal-fires plants completely in the next 20 years. Duke power and AEP in particular
2. No new coal burning plants are being built. Most everything is natural gas some nuke with increasing focus on renewables
3. The major automakers are legitimately planning on being solely electric in the the next 10-15 years
The green new deal specifically with regards to the energy issue is not really far fetched.
Some of the building code issues could certainly be tempered and phased in better
I would personally leave the social aspects out of the green new deal because its a separate issue and really detracts from and politicizes the important debate
-
Getting off of coal is a very good thing but it’s no solution as we are still burning and releasing a lot of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere while ignoring alternative solutions. Too many have the simple-minded ignorant idea of alternatives as Trump who says, when the wind stops so does energy.
How did this man ever graduate high school with his level of ignorance? Daddy’s money?
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
Most peoples willingness to support something generally comes down to how much is being asked. And this sounds pretty expensive.
[link=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-climatechange/americans-demand-climate-action-reuters-poll-idUSKCN1TR15W[/link]Money and raising the boogy-man of bankrupting the country, not to mention the impossibility of “overnight” not using fossil fuels has been the scary alarmist calls since Bush I in the 1990’s right up to today, as if anyone is proposing anything “overnight” of a ban on using any fossil fuels or as if anyone calling for reducing burning fossil fuels cannot ever heat their house, drive a combustion engine, fly a plane, take a steamship, etc.
The argument is bogus from the start. There is no overnight anything. We’ve only been deliberately dawdling.
My question remains, is the planet warming? If you believe it is not, game over as is the conversation because such an idea is 100% against the evidence. You’d have to prove how the planet is not warming.
-
-
-
Very good On The Media story this week about climate & Green New Deal.
[link=https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/green-new-deal-on-the-media]https://www.wnycstudios.o…-new-deal-on-the-media[/link]
-
Hey you can call socialism a BS but its all there. Things like non market solutions blocking IP rights reparations all hell lets just call the whole thing redistribution. Blocking corporate involvement in any part of decision making, ok that means some elected officials are going to be making all the decision. You say that isnt socialism, I call BS.
Then there is this nugget in the actual new Green Deal:
From wiki
“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
“Providing all people of the United States with (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”
“Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”Ok please explain to me how the government taking all these things is going to fix the environment? Im sorry I dont have to have a better plan, this plan is more than enough crap for me to guarantee it wont have my vote.
-
Again Ill say by throwing the societal aspects into this debate they politicize it and detract from what is otherwise something positive
It is stupid and shoots themselves in the foot
-
AOC chief of staff said it accurately enough:
Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, he said, is it wasnt originally a climate thing at all. Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Chakrabarti continued. Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.
[link=https://dailytrendingtodaynews.com/2019/07/aocs-green-new-deal-about-instituting-socialist-economy-not-climate-change/]https://dailytrendingtoda…my-not-climate-change/[/link]The Green New Deal is basically a socialism plan, umm sorry economy re-engineering plan, with Green environmentalism wrapper to get support of the we just gotta do something now crowd.
-
The way it is presented is self defeating
Unfortunate because a lot of good ideas
-
Agreed. But, the damage is done. Much like the Beto ORourke “Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” quote that will live in infamy as a permanent rallying cry for second amendment supporters, any other big environmental plan coming from the left will provoke suspicion and be tainted with this original intent.
-
If more shooting occur
They will
Take them-
I fully recognize there is a historical and ongoing price to be paid for the freedoms we enjoy.
-
Im not convinced ones ability to own military style assault weapons is a freedom that is necessary in todays society
I understand some will disagree and perhaps everyone should be allowed to ow a tank and their own personal supplies of nuclear weapons
But Im not sure those are necessary freedoms either
-
There should be a limit to freedom if it has a significant capability of taking away other peoples freedoms
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I understand some will disagree and perhaps everyone should be allowed to ow a tank and their own personal supplies of nuclear weapons
Reductio ad absurdum might work at a green rally, not here.
-
@ over-caffeinated
The damage is ongoing, it hasnt stopped. In fact if we do nothing at all you aint seen nothing yet about climate change & damage. & refugees.-
Im trying to figure out
Is there anything you cannot own that would restrict your freedom
A tank?
A nice supply of enriched uranium???
Perhaps a functioning nuke?
After all its yer right and they cant tell you what to do
-
Actually… Sssshhhhhh… Dont let this get out, but, yes, you can own a tank.
Well, not that I want any, but I cannot have crack. I hear its really bad for you. So we made it illegal to have. I am not free to get high on crack. Does that mean I cannot have it? I could probably get some quickly if I wanted it, if I chose to be a lawbreaker. Oh wait! There it is!! The whole if you make something illegal then only criminals get to have them thing!
There should be a limit to freedom if it has a significant capability of taking away other peoples freedoms
I do feel I owe this one some response. Who decides what freedoms of ours should be limited? Ultimately is it us. I choose not to limit my freedoms. It could be argued (and I would) that having a gun (and I do) may actually protect my freedoms. Yeah, there is a price.
But enough about guns, this was a global warming thread after all and folks will accuse me of hijacking it. Which I did not intend to do, if anyone even cares, probably not after 18 pages. I do find it interesting though that both topics, for the left, essentially boil down to we gotta do something, think of the poor children! Just like the Simpsons episodes.
Enough for now, I will yield the floor.
-
Ok, so what about the children? & grandchildren? What about us who plan to live for some more decades?
Guns aside, open or reopen another thread.
The question remains, what to do besides sit on our hands & pass the problem to our children because we are too…what? to do something.
Or do you think warming is essentially harmless & outside of minor global inconveniences, not important enough to address?
Seriously, we are a species that has defecated in our nests. Maybe theres a better way?-
Even 16 year-old girls scare the bejeesus out of Republicans.
They live scared and angry about everything. Unhinged.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/24/response-greta-thunberg-is-reminder-that-no-trump-critic-is-immune-attacks-by-presidents-supporters/]https://www.washingtonpos…presidents-supporters/[/link]
Greta Thunberg has captured the attention of many politicos on both the left and the right for her impassioned plea for more aggressive action to combat climate change. The 16-year-old traveled to the United Nations this week to criticize world leaders for what she considers a poor response or all-out inaction to climate change.
This is all wrong, she said Monday while speaking on a panel at a U.N. climate summit. I shouldnt be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean.”
Yet you all come to us young people for hope, Thunberg added. How dare you?
But the Swedish activists strong rebuke to leaders has earned harsh criticism from President Trump and some of his most loyal supporters. The pushback is the latest reminder that for some on the right, no Trump detractor including teenagers is spared the Trumpian response to criticism: punching back if attacked.
Conservative political commentator Michael Knowles was arguing on Fox News on Monday that meatless diets were bad for the environment when he randomly pivoted to attack Thunberg.
None of that matters because the climate hysteria movement is not about science, the Daily Wire podcast host said. If it were about science, it would be led by scientists rather than by politicians and a mentally ill Swedish child who is being exploited by her parents and by the international left.
A more high-profile Fox personality and vocal Trump supporter Laura Ingraham accused Thunberg of being among young climate activists who will punish adults who dont embrace their positions on climate change.
Does anyone else find that chilling? Ingraham asked of Thunbergs speech before juxtaposing the 16-year-olds words with a clip from Children of the Corn, a 1984 movie in which children are moved to kill the adults in a Nebraskan town.
I cant wait for Stephen Kings sequel, Children of the Climate, ” Ingraham said.
And over the weekend, conservative commentator Dinesh DSouza [link=https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status/1175848457191510016]compared[/link] Thunberg to the children used in Nazi propaganda. And Sebastian Gorka, a former White House aide, [link=https://twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1176301345151864832]dismissed[/link] the teenager as an autist child.
-
Greta Thunberg and all the other kids are tools/puppets being used by adults who know that kids regurgitate like parrots what they are being told. The same adults have no concern that they are causing stress and anxiety in kids over the end of the world due to climate change and use the kids to push their agenda.
Meanwhile at the protest all the posters and confetti thrown that was left behind in DC shows that those in attendance really are not concerned about the environment. And for the comment on meat, if meatless is such a concern for phony candidate Kamala Harris (who spoke against meat) why was she and several other democratic candidates in Iowa slinging steaks on large outdoor grills spewing lots of smoke into the air? I guess the votes are more important than staying true to your conviction.
At the same time a conservative group quietly went about cleaning 50 tons of garbage (not polluting like the protestors) from the streets of democratically controlled LA in democratically controlled CA while the puppet kids and all the climate protestors were tying up traffic and causing cars to idle and spew that much more exhaust in the air.-
So the solution is to make fun of her
Cool
-
Where did I make fun of her? I did no such thing. The adults using these kids to wage their battle are causing a lot anxiety in these kids. Kids instead of playing sports, going to music or dance lesson are used as pawns.
-
Quote from kpack123
So the solution is to make fun of her
Cool
[style=”background-color: #ffffff; color: #ff0000;”][i][b]HOW DARE YOU!![/b][/i][/style]
-
-
How did cleaning up garbage affect the climate exactly?
As for Harris, she said reduced meat consumption, not “meatless.” Please get your facts straight. I believe that physicians and others also advise less meat consumption for health reasons, like cancer, cholesterol, etc.
Obviously liberals too I guess.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/opinion/climate-change-ocean-Arctic.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ange-ocean-Arctic.html[/link]
In June, people there told us, they watched a herd of musk ox retreat to small patches of snow that lingered in the hills as they panted through a [link=https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/nome-ak/99762/july-weather/326709]three-day heat wave[/link] of temperatures at and above 80 degrees Fahrenheit. The [link=https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-EAE8649C-9794-43B4-AF19-A8F16A8D465E.pdf]normal daily maximum[/link] in June is 54.9 degrees. More ominous, the ocean is now free of ice most of the year; not that long ago, ice covered the sea near Nome generally from early November to late May. The ice is crucial to the sea life that is central to the people who live there.
Conditions are likely only to worsen. The [link=https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/]latest report[/link] from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released Wednesday, reports that it is virtually certain that the global ocean has warmed unabated since 1970 and warns that the extent of Arctic sea ice will continue to decline as air temperatures continue to warm.
We were among the biologists and weather scientists at the workshop trying to explain the changes, and that more that may be coming. We talked about how sea ice in the region is melting earlier and forming later. The ice was so thin last winter that an unusual series of southerly storms shattered what little ice there was in February and March, far ahead of the normal schedule.
This anomalous weather was followed by fourth highest recorded amount of snowfall in Nome in over 100 years. Heavier snowfall may seem counterintuitive, but the ice-free ocean now allows the atmosphere to hold more precipitation. The Iditarod sled dog race, which ends in Nome, was complicated last winter because, although there was plenty of snow, there were stretches of open water that were usually frozen over.
Whats also troubling is the recent discovery of enormous cyst beds, the seed-like dormant resting stages of ocean algae, in ocean sediments in the Chukchi Sea, north of the Bering Strait. Unlike the nourishing blooms that bring life to the waters of Nome, these cysts can hatch into toxic algal blooms when the ocean warms. The toxins produced by these algae were recently detected at low levels in over a dozen species of marine mammals throughout Alaska, many of which are consumed by Native Alaskans. These algal toxins were also identified in dead sea birds murres, fulmars and storm petrels found during an [link=https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2019/09/09/fifth-straight-year-of-bird-die-off-in-alaska-waters-linked-to-starvation/]unusual die-off[/link] in Alaska beginning in 2015.
[link]https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/[/link]
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/climate/climate-change-oceans-united-nations.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ns-united-nations.html[/link]
Climate change is heating the oceans and altering their chemistry so dramatically that it is threatening seafood supplies, fueling cyclones and floods and posing profound risks to the hundreds of millions of people living along the coasts, according to a sweeping United Nations report issued Wednesday.
The report concludes that the worlds oceans and ice sheets are under such severe stress that the fallout could prove difficult for humans to contain without steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Fish populations are already declining in many regions as warming waters throw marine ecosystems into disarray, according to the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to guide world leaders in policymaking.
The oceans are sending us so many warning signals that we need to get emissions under control, said Hans-Otto Pörtner, a marine biologist at the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and a lead author of the report. Ecosystems are changing, food webs are changing, fish stocks are changing, and this turmoil is affecting humans.
But the oceans themselves are becoming hotter, more acidic and less oxygen-rich as a result, according to the report. If humans keep pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at an increasing rate,marine ecosystems already facing threats from [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/climate/plastic-pollution-study-science-advances.html?module=inline]seaborne plastic waste[/link], unsustainable fishing practices and other man-made stresses will be further strained.
The report, which was written by more than 100 international experts and is based on more than 7,000 studies, represents the most extensive look to date at the effects of climate change on oceans, ice sheets, mountain snowpack and permafrost.
-
-
-
The military recognizes global warming as a major national risk.
What does the military know anyway?
[link=https://www.newsweek.com/former-military-officials-trump-climate-change-1461011]https://www.newsweek.com/…climate-change-1461011[/link]
Following climate change activist Greta Thunberg’s scathing address to world leaders at the United Nations on Monday, former top military officials have called for President Donald Trump to treat the issue as a major national security threat.
Sixty-four former senior military and intelligence leaders have endorsed the Climate Security Plan for America issued on Tuesday by the Center for Climate and Security and George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
“In this context of unprecedented risk and unprecedented foresight, the President has a responsibility to prepare the nation for the unavoidable impacts of climate change, and a responsibility to prevent future security scenarios that impose catastrophic consequences,” the [link=https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/a-climate-security-plan-for-america_2019_9_24-1.pdf]plan[/link] reads.
The proposal calls for Trump to create a new White House Office on Climate Security and promote new climate leadership roles in the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the State Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
[link=https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/a-climate-security-plan-for-america_2019_9_24-1.pdf]https://climateandsecurit…merica_2019_9_24-1.pdf[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
