Talking to a moron about the weather.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Wellll... ya know it's hard to tell the tone in these things.
Hell man, I don't have any studies, it all came from my head.
Sorry to disappoint.

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
a reply to: JaredCondon

Oh my God man... you are SO smart!
Thanks for the insult and for the comment. Way to go.

Please quote from my post the part which you mistakenly conflated as an insult? All I did was point out the fact that the surface concentration of surface c02 would not reach a level sufficient to cause suffocation under any scenario. I called the proposition absurd, not you yourself. In return, you reply in a sarcastic manner with the emphasis "So smart" being used as insult/attack on my personal attributes. Even if were incredibly stupid, it wouldn't change the core validity of the points made in my argument and is thus just a straw man. Stupid people sometime say smart things.

The idea IS absurd. If you disagree, please state why, and outline your reasoning. Or alternatively, insult me again and call me out for insulting you, even though i never did. Im not sure that people will be inclined to believe what you say if you cannot defend your claims, though. I assume that was your aim in posting this?

As far as CO2 being a controller of climate, the graph below shows how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere compared to other gases. It's such a small percentage of the atmosphere; it can't help but have a trivial effect.

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
...
That's part of my point. Everyone is quick to complain or insult or come up with reasons why it's either not true or why a solution is not viable. But hardly anyone offers other solutions, or even discusses it for that matter.

Because the solution the "global left" has in mind is to increase the price of electricity to levels that almost no one will be able to afford, and which will destroy the country transforming it into a "third world nation," and alongside that "the global left" want to suppress, and even jail people, or worse, for daring question your narrative on "anthropogenic climate change/global warming..."

a reply to: Irishhaf

Good question and the bottom line is I can figure out what was caused by people vs. nature unless I science the # out of it for years and years which I just don't have the time, energy or resources to do!

All I know is what I see and what I see is over the years as the population grows and as industry grows, the nature around me gets worse. I realize things have always changed over the years but it seems to me that "over the years" has now become a much shorter time frame.

I am not certain my solution would work at all. In fact, I'm not certain it's even a realistic solution. But again, the point is that it's a solution instead of a complaint

a reply to: ketsuko

Is that what I'm saying?

Perhaps that is a bit presumptuous, mixed with my language that was specifically catered to a specific mindset (I.E. not yours).

Convincing and coercion is absolutely what some folks are about on this topic. I was speaking to them.

For you, I wouldn't have to really approach it at all. There simply aren't options and solutions being presented that are a boon for everyone.

Frankly, I think the natural course of technological progression will address these issues regardless. However, the more people that focus on ideological conversion, the less that will be actively pursuing solid, real advancements.

In essence, I'd like to see concepts presented similar to technologies like the internet. There is no "save the world" clause, no zealous conversion before we talked about it.. its ideologically ambivalent.

Which is exactly what the vast majority of advancements would be, if they were not framed in the context of politics (essentially). Or, really, if it went beyond token gestures derived from moral righteousness, but absent of real drive. It'd be like if Henry Ford was constantly harassing people that they "really should be using horseless carriages," but he refused to actually build them or work on them.

So, the left tends to demand total adherence and the right tends to resist any and all change. Framing normal tool and technology advancement in this context is highly detrimental. But, they also require different approaches to even discuss. Admittedly, such concessions are borderline blasphemous, but personally.. I find that contextualizing discussion according to individuals is a good thing for a variety of reasons affecting all parties, including myself.

The first thing I would do is stop HAARP and aerosol spraying. The root of the problem more than likely is something they have created themselves and now are trying to fix their mistake.
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Climate is ever changing as it always did...and will continue to forever.

Did man have an effect on it? Sure...

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
a reply to: SofaKing

Why do you have to be an asshat when everyone else is trying to have a mature and educational conversation?
Please go away.

Karl Popper famously said, “A theory that explains everything explains nothing.”

So what do you make of the theory that catastrophic manmade CO2-driven “climate change” can account for harsher winters and lighter winters, more snow and less snow, droughts and floods, more hurricanes and less hurricanes, more rain and less rain, more malaria and less malaria, saltier seas and less salty seas, Antarctica ice melting and Antarctic ice gaining and dozens of other contradictions?

Popper gave a name to “theories” like this: pseudoscience.

a reply to: SofaKing

Heck, people keep forgetting that Earth is not the only planet undergoing dramatic climate change. Since the 1980s, or almost around the time Earth has been warming, pluto has also been warming, so has Mars, and many other planets and moons with an atmosphere in our solar system.

Our sun itself has been acting weird. Back in 2004-2007 at a time when the overall solar activity was decreasing, astronomers found that the Sun's visible light was increasing and warming Earth more. THis is a contradiction to what we have seen the sun act for at least over 100 years.

What's more interesting is that as Pluto had been orbiting away from the sun it has been warming more and more, and not that long ago Pluto and Chandra were emitting high amounts of x-rays and were/are warming even more, but astronomers can't understand why that is happening. Neither celestial bodies are big enough to emit so high amounts of x-rays from their cores.

For years the left in these forums have been claiming all of this is "just coincidence." Yet it is still undergoing. The changes Earth, and every planet in our solar system, and even our sun, are undergoing are being caused by cloudlets of the new region of the LIC we have been encountering. The amount of cosmic rays the solar system is receiving has also been increasing, even during solar maximums.

Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

Cosmic Rays, especially X-Rays, The Solar System is Receiving Have been Increasing

Earth has also been experiencing an increase in other activity such as in our magnetic field, which has been weakening more and more.

Earth's Magnetic Field Is Weakening 10 Times Faster Now

Or what about the global increase in the amount of large earthquakes

The 2010–2014.3 global earthquake rate increase
Tom Parsons 1 and Eric L. Geist 1

1 U. S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California, USA
...
1. Introduction

Obvious increases in the global rate of large (M ≥ 7.0) earthquakes happened after 1992, 2010, and especially during the first quarter of 2014 (Table 1 and Figure 1). Given these high rates, along with suggestions that damaging earthquakes may be causatively linked at global distance [e.g., Gomberg and Bodin, 1994; Pollitz et al., 1998; Tzanis and Makropoulos, 2002; Bufe and Perkins, 2005; Gonzalez-Huizar et al., 2012; Pollitz et al., 2012, 2014], we investigate whether there is a significant departure from a random process underlying these rate changes. Recent studies have demonstrated that M ≥ 7.0 earthquakes (and also tsunamis) that occurred since 1900 follow a Poisson process [e.g., Michael, 2011; Geist and Parsons, 2011; Daub et al., 2012; Shearer and Stark, 2012; Parsons and Geist, 2012; Ben-Naim et al., 2013]. Here we focus on the period since 2010, which has M ≥ 7.0 rates increased by 65% and M ≥ 5.0 rates up 32% compared with the 1979 – present average. The first quarter of 2014 experienced more than double the average M ≥ 7.0 rate, enough to intrigue the news media [e.g., www.nbcnews.com...]. We extend our analysis to M ≥ 5.0 levels, as many of these lower magnitude events convey significant hazard, and global catalogs have not generally been tested down to these thresholds.

2. Methods and Data

We work with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) catalog of M≥ 5.0 global earthquakes for the period between 1979 and 2014.3 with a primary focus on the recent interval between 2010 and 2014.3 that shows the highest earthquake rates (Table 1 and Figure 1). A variety of tests suggest that the catalog is complete down to magnitudes between M=4.6 and M=5.2, depending on the method used to assess it (see supporting information). We examine a range of lower magnitude thresholds above M =5.0 to account for this uncertainty.
...

profile.usgs.gov...

Or the fact that the molten iron, beneath Canada and Russia, in Earth's core has trebled in speed?

Molten iron river discovered speeding beneath Russia and Canada

Most of the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) crowd claim: "what do we lose by implementing these policies...?" We have a lot to lose and all based on a hoax.

Even Obama's EPA chief had to admit the "dramatic changes" they wanted to implement wouldn't lower temperatures by much, maybe 0.01C... We wouldn't be able to distinguish that change of temperature more so when the natural changes in temperatures would mask any possible drop in temperatures such dramatic changes would implement.

EPA Chief concedes climate rule; it's about 'reinventing a global economy'
page: 1

All of this should tell anyone, honest enough to admit it, that these changes are all correlated and they are not just "coincidences."

But maybe you (the AGWarmers) want to live like people are in Venezuela, which implemented drastic changes to combat climate change..."

edit on 11-10-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

Venezuela Combats Severe Drought with New Electricity Rationing Plan

BTW, in the above article the AGWarmist who wrote it claimed that the El Niño was being accentuated by climate change, but this is wrong. El Niño/La Niña are events caused by changes in our sun.... It has nothing to do with CO2...

I think that ALL CITIES on the planet should turn off the LIGHTS in sky scraper office buildings from 10 pm to 6 am. Every day of the week. Any building unoccupied should have the lights mandatorily turned off. This is by far the biggest waste and polluter on the planet. Crime is nothing compared to Hurricane damage and climate deaths due to weather and diseases. Our social behaviors need limits imposed. People are so wasteful. The recession caused people to reduce, recycle, donate, and reuse. People drove less. Higher gas prices keep pollution down people even carpooled more.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Climate is ever changing as it always did...and will continue to forever.

Did man have an effect on it? Sure...

So the question should be.. " exactly how much of an effect is man having "...

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Only thought: if the solution is a tax scheme....i am veey suspicious of the problem.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree! Ronald Reagan said, the most dangerous thing to our society is the government itself. I remember the "super sites" of industrial waste all over the country in the 1970s and 80s. Gladly, these are gone or under EPA control. However, the EPA are not good stewards either.


It's my opinion that much of the climate control is an effort to control the US industry and economy. The left wants to tax carbon emissions ie, breathing! A tax on the air we consume. The government is trying to steal our income to re-distribute it in other countries. This is why the Paris Climate Accords collapsed when the US withdrew.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I remember the "super sites" of industrial waste all over the country in the 1970s and 80s. Gladly, these are gone or under EPA control. However, the EPA are not good stewards either.

Yes, the EPA started out with laudable goals and has done some good in the past, focusing on true pollution and actual threats to our lives and futures. Now that most of that has been accomplished at an acceptable scale (no industry or process will ever be perfect), they are forced to find problems that don't really exist (or, at least, not nearly to the scale that they claim) for solutions that exist solely to justify the agency's existence. They are in survival mode, and it's time to put them out of their misery, if I'm being 100% honest.

It's my opinion that much of the climate control is an effort to control the US industry and economy. The left wants to tax carbon emissions ie, breathing! A tax on the air we consume. The government is trying to steal our income to re-distribute it in other countries. This is why the Paris Climate Accords collapsed when the US withdrew.

Every regulatory agency devolves into a money-grabbing, totalitarian body that ends up only existing as a fiscal succubus and authoritarian body.

It's a power surrogate for the POTUS so that they can blame their controlling natures on something else.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Skorpiogurl
Climate changed thanks to nature many times, and quite dramatically, on it's own before the Industrial Revolution. It's not moronic to be sceptical about climate Change.

I keep hearing this, but no one will explain the incredible coincidence of it occurring this time, directly aligned with the industrial revolution. We are a level that hasn't been seen in over 400 thousand years (starting around 1950). Almost half a million years. But you know it's natural, because it happened before?

That's not science, that's called burying your head in the sand. And although a multiple of major scientific societies, academies, and governmental bodies are producing statements that this is largely man made and needs to be addressed, people insist on propping up the ridiculous theory that apparently ALL these agencies are "in on it" as far as it being some grand scheme to sneaky-steal your money on unneeded green projects to project the planet.

a reply to: fleabit

Most people are always ready to help until they find out it will cost them personally

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Skorpiogurl

Only thought: if the solution is a tax scheme....i am veey suspicious of the problem.

That would be bad, but the worst "scheme" the left has in mind is to sequester atmospheric CO2. This will cause a stunt in the growth/harvest of plant life in areas in which CO2 will be sequestered. This would cause mass starvation, as well as a reduce amount of water available for us and animals at levels not seen for a long time.

a reply to: fleabit

The Earth began warming over 250 years, in the early 1600s, before the height of the industrial revolution.

As for "coincidences," how about the fact that other planets and moons with an atmosphere in our solar system have also been warming up/undergoing dramatic climate changes?

"Even back in 2002 we knew Pluto's atmospheric pressure had triple as it was warming the more it moved away from the sun, and this had been happening for 14 years. So Pluto, and maybe even Charon have been warming since 1988, and to this day they are still warming inexplicably.

Pluto and it's moon are too small to be able to produce and maintain this heat internally. Perhaps it is time to look for an outside cause to this warming which seems to be happening in several planets in the solar system, including on Earth.

Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars

The article above is from May 2016. Mars has also been warming since at least 2001.

Climate Change on Jupiter.
Is shrinking superstorm evidence of climate change on Jupiter?

Climate change on Saturn.

The sudden warming of Saturn at least since 2004 which NASA could not truly explain.

The inexplicable enormous storms that appeared on a normally free storm Saturn but have appeared earlier than ever before.

And now.

Hexagon on Saturn: Nasa scientists ponder colour-changing north pole

Saturn's moon Titan also undergoing warming.
Is Titan Earth's evil twin? Saturn's moon has giant dunes made of METHANE that hint at dramatic global warming

The unexpected warm temperatures of Saturn's moon Enceladus.

It is true that the composition of the atmospheres of all solar system planets are different. But isn't it too much of a coincidence that all these changes are occurring at the same time Earth is undergoing similar changes?"

a reply to: Skorpiogurl

The fact is...summer IS too hot..and winter is too cold!

We need to do something to limit the tilt of earth to stop making the seasons so drastic...

The dam tilt of this planet affects us WAY more than anything else..and our travelling through the Galaxy likely does as well.

LoL all this climate change talk blaming negativity and blaming everyday humans is beyond old.

Liberal left leaning fear mongering falling for everything their preachers spout has become BY FAR the largest problem we have.

And we have begun dealing with it.

Prepare to be blasted with a new reality...it will be very VERY difficult for any leftist to survive a paradigm that is stable and full of truth.