Miscellaneous Discussion Thread II

Quote: odiousgambit

furthermore, when the weather is the opposite trend, these same activists all rush to claim it is proof of global warming when, again, it is just weather
link to original post

The hope, but not the reality as yet.

Quote:

Quantum computers could help specific, hard subproblems in climate science: speeding up high-resolution simulations, improving uncertainty quantification and ensembles, accelerating data assimilation and inverse problems, simulating atmospheric chemistry at quantum accuracy, and enabling new machine-learning workflows for pattern discovery and optimization. Below I list concrete problems, the quantum techniques that map to them, and practical limitations to keep in mind.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: DRich

It is a bitter cold 40 degrees here in Southwest Florida where I am at this morning. I think I need to move further south to get away from this misery.

Where is the global warming that I have been promised?
link to original post

global warming studies are based on long term weather trends -
not on short term cold snaps

Nope, they are based on at most 150 years of records. That is not "long term" at all. 50 years ago scientists believed another ice age was coming.

Quote:

Tree rings, studied in dendrochronology, can go back thousands of years, with some records extending over 10,000 years by linking living trees to older dead wood, revealing past climate, drought, and environmental conditions long before modern records. By matching ring patterns across different trees and time periods, scientists create unbroken chronologies that show climate shifts, helping to understand and predict future changes.

furthermore

Quote:

By comparing fossilized organisms to their modern-day relatives, scientists can infer the climate of a region in the past.

rxwine, can you include a citation link to what you're quoting?

Quote: Dieter

rxwine, can you include a citation link to what you're quoting?
link to original post

Google Ai. I believe it sourced from 15 total.

Quote: lilredrooster

there are some crackpots - chicken littles who claim "the sky is falling"

link to original post

What you may be missing is that these crackpots can get in charge of the whole business of 'what to do'. The worst case may be Sri Lanka, where crazy ideas like eliminating nitrogen from fertilizer, and totally switching to wind power, were put into place. People died. The nuts got into control due to the nation’s debt crisis, and they saw this as a chance to turn the nation green ... and had no idea what they were doing.

More recently, check out the complete reversal Germany had to do because of crackpot ideas there. And you can even ask GM about their recent multibillion dollar losses due to the US administration of the time* arm-twisting them to put out EVs that no one wanted… do they think the right people were making decisions? Crackpots tried to force feed this on us and went about it in a way that was never going to work. That’s not to say it couldn’t work, but you can’t put unrealistic activists in charge of these things.

* which will not be mentioned due to sensitivities here.

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

Quote: odiousgambit

What you may be missing is that these crackpots can get in charge of the whole business of 'what to do'. The worst case may be Sri Lanka, where crazy ideas like eliminating nitrogen from fertilizer, and totally switching to wind power, were put into place. People died. The nuts got into control due to the nation’s debt crisis, and they saw this as a chance to turn the nation green ... and had no idea what they were doing...

link to original post

Ah, but the people in charge of making the decision and implementing these policies knew exactly what they were doing!

It is the little girl with the purple hair, waving a sign and spitting at a cop, who actually believes in this stuff. She is a fool and she is used as one. The ones in charge of it know better, and they do it because it gets the money.

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?
link to original post

No. Nothing to ‘do’ about it. Too far off to even think about preparing.

Human beings influenced global warming is real. The problem is the deniers want to do nothing, and the most vocal want to do too much. In our present political environment I don’t trust either side to come up with the ‘best’ solution.

I bought a lithium battery electric golf cart to do my little part.

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?
link to original post

Fossilized crocodilians in the Arctic.

Viking burial grounds in land that is now permanently frozen.

Evidence of vineyards in places now too cold for grapes.

Records of curling in Scotland, but on lochs that now no longer freeze over.

Countless examples like this around the world, and what do they all prove? That the world was once much warmer and much colder than it is now, and my car wasn't involved! Leave my car alone!

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?
link to original post

No. Nothing to ‘do’ about it. Too far off to even think about preparing.

Human beings influenced global warming is real. The problem is the deniers want to do nothing, and the most vocal want to do too much. In our present political environment I don’t trust either side to come up with the ‘best’ solution.

I bought a lithium battery electric golf cart to do my little part.
link to original post

How is buying a golf cart "doing your part?" I don't get it.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: Dieter

rxwine, can you include a citation link to what you're quoting?
link to original post

Google Ai. I believe it sourced from 15 total.


link to original post

The problem is you cannot reliably project from these things. Global Warming disciples say the earth is warming by 1-2C and that is a big thing. To get that kind of precision you would need accurate records going back a million years at the least. Fossils do not do this.

The bottom line is the climate has been "changing" for 4.5 billion years and will for 4.5 billion more. It is arrogant to think that we are special because we see a trend over 100. It is arrogant to think that the temperature 150 years ago was the "right" one and we have to do anything possible to get back there, even when we cannot do so.

My take is that global warming hysteria as a cause is past its prime. The average person is tiring of it. The intellectually curious have notice that the disciples have been saying "we have 10 years to do something or else all will be lost" for 40 years now. The doomsday predictions have been discredited.

The next thing to worry about will come around the next decade or so.

There is a worry that AI will take over and get rid of humanity. There are various scenarios but I think one real one would be that in-control AI gets so convinced about climate change that it quickly enacts all the things that the crackpots want and as a result millions die. The Uber-robot might even decide that since it's been told the problem is anthropogenic, killing humans is a good thing

I'm basing this on the fact that when you ask the bots about climate change, they all dismiss completely the skeptics

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?
link to original post

I don't understand this idea about natural rises of climate change negating an additional effect of the same thing. Summer plus climate warming equals more heat. Fire plus more fuel generally equals more fire. A bullet plus more bullets probably equals more chances of death to the receiver.

That there's natural rises in climate over time is what happens, but it doesn't mean there isn't a problem with additional input. A lifeguard who goes out and pours water on a drowning victim is only making things worse.

.
from google:

.
Current effects of climate change include more extreme weather (heatwaves, floods, droughts, wildfires), rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean warming/acidification, disruptions to ecosystems (biodiversity loss, coral bleaching), impacts on human health (disease, hunger, mental stress), and threats to food/water security, all driven by rising global temperatures. These interconnected issues are already affecting communities worldwide, disproportionately harming vulnerable populations.

Physical & Environmental Impacts

Extreme Weather: More frequent and intense heatwaves, heavy downpours, droughts, floods, and stronger storms.

Rising Sea Levels: Accelerating sea level rise threatens coastal communities with erosion and flooding.

Melting Ice & Snow: Glaciers are shrinking, and Arctic sea ice is decreasing, affecting water supplies and ecosystems.

Ocean Changes: Warming oceans lead to coral bleaching, while increasing acidity harms marine life.

Wildfires: Increased heat and drought fuel more severe and frequent wildfires, causing widespread forest die-off.

Human & Societal Impacts

Health Risks: Heat-related illnesses, spread of infectious diseases, malnutrition, and mental health issues.

Food & Water Security: Droughts and changing weather patterns reduce agricultural yields, leading to food shortages and water scarcity.

Ecosystem Disruption: Harm to wildlife habitats, biodiversity loss, and challenges for human livelihoods.

Infrastructure Damage: Flooding, extreme heat, and storms damage homes, transportation, and energy systems.

Key Indicators

Global Temperature Rise: Earth's average temperature has increased by about 1.1°C (2°F) since the late 19th century.
Increased CO2: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are significantly higher than pre-industrial levels.
These impacts are interconnected and pose major challenges, with delayed action increasing risks to human health, economies, and the planet's livability.

.

As to whether humans have the audacity to think they can affect things globally. Yes we all are consuming microplastics. Yes, that may be impacting our health. And yes reduction of ozone-depleting substances has reduced the size of hole in the ozone layer.

Look it up.

Heck we are likely polluting space enough to affect our modern convenience of satellites (so I hear). Russia supposedly may be working on a weapon that blows sats apart in thousands of bits, potentially hazardous to other intact craft as they orbit.

Quote: rxwine

Heck we are likely polluting space enough to affect our modern convenience of satellites (so I hear). Russia supposedly may be working on a weapon that blows sats apart in thousands of bits, potentially hazardous to other intact craft as they orbit.
link to original post

You don't think we don't have that already or at the least have not been working on one since the 1980s????

Quote: lilredrooster

.
from google:...

link to original post

I think I see the problem.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?
link to original post

No. Nothing to ‘do’ about it. Too far off to even think about preparing.

Human beings influenced global warming is real. The problem is the deniers want to do nothing, and the most vocal want to do too much. In our present political environment I don’t trust either side to come up with the ‘best’ solution.

I bought a lithium battery electric golf cart to do my little part.
link to original post

Th farther out an event is gives us more time to prepare for it. Humans are way too short sighted. Play the long game.

Man-made CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years. There is no way -other than plants - to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from the US and Europe have declined by roughly 10-25%, but this hard-earned reduction has been completely overwhelmed by massive increases in CO2 emissions by China and India. China and India were never signees of any of the Climate Change accords. An inconvenient truth.

If the U.S. instantaneously returned to 1700s technology and life-styles and had near-zero emissions for the next 100 years it would not significantly change the uncertainties that we face from climate change - unless China and India also make massive reductions. Even if China and India were to reduce emissions by a factor of two the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to climb higher and higher.

The only realistic option we have is to figure out how to accommodate and adapt our civilization to whatever small or large changes occur in the climate and in the distribution of water on the Earth.

This is exactly the viewpoint that Bill Gates has recently announced. Frankly, it's been obvious for a long time.

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml#:~:text=The%20myth%20that%20the%20climate%20science%20community,built%20the%20foundation%20for%20modern%20climate%20science.

Quote: gordonm888

<snip>The only realistic option we have is to figure out how to accommodate and adapt our civilization to whatever small or large changes occur in the climate and in the distribution of water on the Earth.<snip>
link to original post

gordonm888,

Or we can hope that Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology comes to fruition soon.

Dog Hand

The whole Earth can recycle given enough time and no extraordinary events. In a way, it's not really complicated. If a city continually produces garbage faster that it can process, you got a problem. Unlike other animals our modernization has allowed us to input way faster than any other living thing by multiples.

If, and when, man abuses the earth badly enough, the earth will rid itself of the infection. I expect mankind will wipe itself out before that happens.

Beer's Law, man! A lot of the beliefs about global warming have been (mis)informed by the social sciences and political science. These are the kind of people who believe that if a 1% concentration of a substance absorbs 90% of a particular wavelength, then a 10% solution will absorb 900% of that wavelength. The Science!

The whole basis for the idea of global warming comes from an observation of Arrhenius, applying a Boltzmann equation that shows the thermal radiation emitted by the earth will always on average be of a longer wavelength than what we absorbed, and those longer wavelengths could be up in the absorption spectra of certain atmospheric molecules. Photons check in, but they don't check out.

Now there are many IR absorbing molecules in the atmosphere and most of them we either need, and need quite a bit of, or we can't do anything about because of what happens when unfiltered solar radiation hits it. We need our O2, our H2O, and plants need their CO2. And we will have CH4 as long as there are methanogens in the biosphere and they have something to eat. Then when the radiation hits the O2 (and to a lesser extent N2) it dissociates and reforms as O3, N2O, sometimes a little CO or NO or NO2. So all those things are there and always will be.

For every square inch of sky there are 14 pounds of air and when you have significant amounts of these molecules in there they are going to absorb everything in the middle of their absorption spectrum and if you add more of the molecule, you don't get any more absorption there, because of Beer's Law which shows this is a logarithmic relationship and not linear. The only place you will get more is in the wings, right at the very edges of the absorption spectrum of each molecule. But that gets tricky too because sometimes the wings are right in the areas where some other molecule is already absorbing completely and in that case it adds no absorption at all.

How many of the global warming models actually took these effects into account? I don't know, they don't like talking about that part. Because we won't understand and might get confused. See how complex and opaque (so to speak!) this all is?

Quote: gordonm888

Man-made CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years. There is no way -other than plants - to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from the US and Europe have declined by roughly 10-25%, but this hard-earned reduction has been completely overwhelmed by massive increases in CO2 emissions by China and India. China and India were never signees of any of the Climate Change accords. An inconvenient truth.

If the U.S. instantaneously returned to 1700s technology and life-styles and had near-zero emissions for the next 100 years it would not significantly change the uncertainties that we face from climate change - unless China and India also make massive reductions. Even if China and India were to reduce emissions by a factor of two the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to climb higher and higher.

The only realistic option we have is to figure out how to accommodate and adapt our civilization to whatever small or large changes occur in the climate and in the distribution of water on the Earth.

This is exactly the viewpoint that Bill Gates has recently announced. Frankly, it's been obvious for a long time.
link to original post

All CO2 is less than 1/2 of 1% including man-made. People do not realize how little CO2 is really around. That little bit of change is no way causing the end of the world as is being made out. Population decline will reverse the increase the next 150 years, no need to worry.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?
link to original post

No. Nothing to ‘do’ about it. Too far off to even think about preparing.

Human beings influenced global warming is real. The problem is the deniers want to do nothing, and the most vocal want to do too much. In our present political environment I don’t trust either side to come up with the ‘best’ solution.

I bought a lithium battery electric golf cart to do my little part.
link to original post

How is buying a golf cart "doing your part?" I don't get it.
link to original post

It’s electric. Smaller carbon footprint than an equivalent gas guzzler. But I’m teasing. I bought it because it’s SO nice to never need to go to a gas station. It doesn’t smell. And it’s much quieter, too. I get a range of 100 miles so never a problem. It’s a golf cart, not a car!

Quote: SOOPOO

It’s electric...

...boogie woogie woogie woogie!

Yes I like the Florida tradition of going around in a golf cart too. I haven't seen golf carts in Vegas but there are a lot of wheels- electric scooters, skateboards, Segways etc. As long as you are not going far (and you have a place to plug it in!) electric has the advantage.

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: gordonm888

Man-made CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years. There is no way -other than plants - to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from the US and Europe have declined by roughly 10-25%, but this hard-earned reduction has been completely overwhelmed by massive increases in CO2 emissions by China and India. China and India were never signees of any of the Climate Change accords. An inconvenient truth.

If the U.S. instantaneously returned to 1700s technology and life-styles and had near-zero emissions for the next 100 years it would not significantly change the uncertainties that we face from climate change - unless China and India also make massive reductions. Even if China and India were to reduce emissions by a factor of two the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to climb higher and higher.

The only realistic option we have is to figure out how to accommodate and adapt our civilization to whatever small or large changes occur in the climate and in the distribution of water on the Earth.

This is exactly the viewpoint that Bill Gates has recently announced. Frankly, it's been obvious for a long time.
link to original post

All CO2 is less than 1/2 of 1% including man-made. People do not realize how little CO2 is really around. That little bit of change is no way causing the end of the world as is being made out. Population decline will reverse the increase the next 150 years, no need to worry.
link to original post

And that little bit is having a negative impact on human survivability.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: DRich

Quote: lilredrooster

there is undeniable proof of global warming
the real question is how severe will the adverse effects be and how soon

What about the recurring ice ages? About every 100,000 years or so the Earth has an ice age. Should we not be spending and utilizing resources to combat these?
link to original post

No. Nothing to ‘do’ about it. Too far off to even think about preparing.

Human beings influenced global warming is real. The problem is the deniers want to do nothing, and the most vocal want to do too much. In our present political environment I don’t trust either side to come up with the ‘best’ solution.

I bought a lithium battery electric golf cart to do my little part.
link to original post

How is buying a golf cart "doing your part?" I don't get it.
link to original post

It’s electric. Smaller carbon footprint than an equivalent gas guzzler. But I’m teasing. I bought it because it’s SO nice to never need to go to a gas station. It doesn’t smell. And it’s much quieter, too. I get a range of 100 miles so never a problem. It’s a golf cart, not a car!
link to original post

I ditched most of my gas powered lawn and garden equipment for the same reasons. All I have left is the snowblower.

Quote: SOOPOO

It’s electric. Smaller carbon footprint than an equivalent gas guzzler. But I’m teasing. I bought it because it’s SO nice to never need to go to a gas station. It doesn’t smell. And it’s much quieter, too. I get a range of 100 miles so never a problem. It’s a golf cart, not a car!
link to original post

The outlets in the garage don't have cold beer, scratcher tickets, or taquitos... do they? ;)

Quote: gordonm888

Man-made CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years. There is no way -other than plants - to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from the US and Europe have declined by roughly 10-25%, but this hard-earned reduction has been completely overwhelmed by massive increases in CO2 emissions by China and India. China and India were never signees of any of the Climate Change accords. An inconvenient truth.

If the U.S. instantaneously returned to 1700s technology and life-styles and had near-zero emissions for the next 100 years it would not significantly change the uncertainties that we face from climate change - unless China and India also make massive reductions. Even if China and India were to reduce emissions by a factor of two the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to climb higher and higher.

The only realistic option we have is to figure out how to accommodate and adapt our civilization to whatever small or large changes occur in the climate and in the distribution of water on the Earth.

This is exactly the viewpoint that Bill Gates has recently announced. Frankly, it's been obvious for a long time.
link to original post

There is so much misinformation in this post it is disturbing: An adult male should be able to perform basic fact checks on primary sources before spreading falsehoods like this.

Factually Incorrect Claims ONLY (with sources, you know the things which show you are not making it all up)


1. "China and India were never signatories of any of the Climate Change accords"

Both countries signed the Paris Agreement on the first day it opened for signature (22 April 2016) and have ratified it. Both remain parties to the agreement and have recently reaffirmed their commitments. This claim is straightforwardly false.
"On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement)
"Both countries recently reaffirmed their commitment to the accord. India's climate change minister Bhupender Yadav gave a speech at the World Sustainable Development Summit 2025 calling for increased international climate collaboration."
(https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/senator-falsely-claims-china-and-india-left-paris-climate-pact/)
"India and China are still very much a part of the agreement... more than 190 other countries remain committed to the pact."
— Dr Wesley Morgan, climate change diplomacy expert, University of NSW
(https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/senator-falsely-claims-china-and-india-left-paris-climate-pact/)

2. "There is no way—other than plants—to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere"

Direct air capture technology exists and is commercially operational. Multiple facilities are running worldwide, including Climeworks' plant in Iceland and Heirloom's facility in California. Enhanced mineral weathering and ocean-based methods also exist.
"Direct air capture (DAC) technologies extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere at any location, unlike carbon capture which is generally carried out at the point of emissions, such as a steel plant."
(https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture)
"Heirloom's first direct air capture facility opened in Tracy, California, in November 2023. The facility can remove up to 1,000 U.S. tons of CO2 annually."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture)
"Direct air capture is a suite of technologies that use chemical reactions to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. When air moves over certain chemicals, they selectively react with and trap CO2, allowing the other components of air to pass through."
(https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal)

3. "Man-made CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years"

This massively and cynically understates the problem. While individual molecules cycle in 5-15 years, the elevated concentration persists for centuries to millennia. Roughly 20-35% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over a THOUSAND years. The "40 years" figure has no basis in mainstream carbon cycle science.
"The first 10% goes quickly, but it's not very much of it. The second part goes on a scale of centuries to millennia, but that only gets 80% of it... the last of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere takes tens of thousands of years to leave."
— Ed Boyle, Professor of Ocean Geochemistry, MIT
(https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere)
"Human-generated carbon dioxide is expected to continue warming the planet for tens of thousands of years."
(https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere)
"Given the extremely long life of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature level already observed will persist for several decades even if emissions are rapidly reduced to net zero."
(https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-again-new-record-2023)

I could go on at great length here, for example what Bill Gates said isn't anything to do with the hideous contortion you came up with but I don't want to write a book. I have confined this post to things which are obviously not true, not the full extent of the propagandizing and misinformation.

Quote: AZDuffman

The problem is you cannot reliably project from these things. Global Warming disciples say the earth is warming by 1-2C and that is a big thing. To get that kind of precision you would need accurate records going back a million years at the least. Fossils do not do this.

The bottom line is the climate has been "changing" for 4.5 billion years and will for 4.5 billion more. It is arrogant to think that we are special because we see a trend over 100. It is arrogant to think that the temperature 150 years ago was the "right" one and we have to do anything possible to get back there, even when we cannot do so.

My take is that global warming hysteria as a cause is past its prime. The average person is tiring of it. The intellectually curious have notice that the disciples have been saying "we have 10 years to do something or else all will be lost" for 40 years now. The doomsday predictions have been discredited.

The next thing to worry about will come around the next decade or so.
link to original post

More quackery and pseudoscience.

1. "To get that kind of precision you would need accurate records going back a million years at the least. Fossils do not do this."

False. Scientists do not rely solely on fossils—and certainly don't need a million years of data to detect 1-2°C changes. Multiple independent methods exist.
"Ice cores preserve annual layers, making it simple to date the ice. Seasonal differences in the snow properties create layers—just like rings in trees."
(https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/)
Ice core records from the GISP2 project in Greenland extend from 49,981 to 95 calendar years before present with high temporal resolution.
(https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=noaa-icecore-2475)
"The PAGES 2K project, a collaboration between thousands of palaeoclimatologists from 125 different countries, published a thorough analysis of global surface temperatures over the past 2,000 years."
(https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how-proxy-data-reveals-climate-of-earths-distant-past/)
"These ratios allow reconstruction of past temperatures with high precision. δ¹⁸O is one of the primary proxies for interpreting paleoclimate data."
(https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/61042/20251230/how-ice-cores-reveal-climate-history-insights-paleoclimate-science-ancient-data.htm)
Direct thermometer measurements exist back to the mid-1700s, which is sufficient to establish the current warming trend with high confidence.

2. "The climate has been 'changing' for 4.5 billion years... It is arrogant to think we are special because we see a trend over 100 [years]"

Misleading. While climate has always changed, the rate of current change is what distinguishes it.
"Current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age."
(https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)
"The current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago."
— Geological Society of London Scientific Statement
(https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/full/10.1144/jgs2020-239)
"The magnitude and rate of warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes at any other time over the last 24,000 years."
— Jessica Tierney, Associate Professor, University of Arizona
(https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/11/10/new-method-shows-todays-warming-unprecedented-over-past-24000-years/)
The issue is not that climate changes—it's that the current rate is geologically anomalous.

3. "The doomsday predictions have been discredited"

False. Climate model predictions have been REMARKABLY accurate.
"Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations."
(https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming)
"10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."
(https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/)
"The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists' confidence that both they as well as today's more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming."
— Gavin Schmidt, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/202001_accuracy/)
"The physics in these early models was accurate in predicting subsequently observed global surface warming."
(https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w)
The claim conflates media headlines and political rhetoric with actual scientific projections. The IPCC reports have been broadly validated.

4. "The intellectually curious have noticed that the disciples have been saying 'we have 10 years to do something or else all will be lost' for 40 years now"
Strawman argument. Scientific projections have consistently described a gradual worsening of impacts correlated with cumulative emissions—not binary "all is lost" deadlines. What scientists have said is that delaying action increases eventual costs and locks in more severe outcomes. This is not the same as predicting total civilisational collapse by a specific date.
The "10 years" framing typically refers to windows for limiting warming to specific thresholds (like 1.5°C), which have indeed narrowed as predicted. The thresholds themselves haven't been "discredited"—we've simply moved closer to crossing them.
"Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Natural changes in these forcings would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960 under a normal emissions pathway. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are experiencing."
(https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/climate-change-context-paleoclimate)

It took me only minutes to check the claims of the above posts which are drawn primarily from uncritical right-wing sources sponsored by corporations.

Why introduce facts into the debate? Don't you have any personal experiences to share? Does't having to wear a sweater in January disprove this whole( not hole) whacky theory that shitting in our bed is somehow bad for us?
Did you ever think that a hole in the ozone layer might be a good thing, allowing all the excess heat to escape? Corporate America tried to save us all by pushing aerosol products, but a bunch of misguided noodniks prevented them from expanding their use, products that would have destroyed the ozone layer and helped disperse the added heat.
We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Quote: DougGander

Quote: gordonm888

Man-made CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years. There is no way -other than plants - to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from the US and Europe have declined by roughly 10-25%, but this hard-earned reduction has been completely overwhelmed by massive increases in CO2 emissions by China and India. China and India were never signees of any of the Climate Change accords. An inconvenient truth.

If the U.S. instantaneously returned to 1700s technology and life-styles and had near-zero emissions for the next 100 years it would not significantly change the uncertainties that we face from climate change - unless China and India also make massive reductions. Even if China and India were to reduce emissions by a factor of two the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to climb higher and higher.

The only realistic option we have is to figure out how to accommodate and adapt our civilization to whatever small or large changes occur in the climate and in the distribution of water on the Earth.

This is exactly the viewpoint that Bill Gates has recently announced. Frankly, it's been obvious for a long time.
link to original post

There is so much misinformation in this post it is disturbing: An adult male should be able to perform basic fact checks on primary sources before spreading falsehoods like this.

Factually Incorrect Claims ONLY (with sources, you know the things which show you are not making it all up)


1. "China and India were never signatories of any of the Climate Change accords"

Both countries signed the Paris Agreement on the first day it opened for signature (22 April 2016) and have ratified it. Both remain parties to the agreement and have recently reaffirmed their commitments. This claim is straightforwardly false.
"On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement)
"Both countries recently reaffirmed their commitment to the accord. India's climate change minister Bhupender Yadav gave a speech at the World Sustainable Development Summit 2025 calling for increased international climate collaboration."
(https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/senator-falsely-claims-china-and-india-left-paris-climate-pact/)
"India and China are still very much a part of the agreement... more than 190 other countries remain committed to the pact."
— Dr Wesley Morgan, climate change diplomacy expert, University of NSW
(https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/senator-falsely-claims-china-and-india-left-paris-climate-pact/)

2. "There is no way—other than plants—to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere"

Direct air capture technology exists and is commercially operational. Multiple facilities are running worldwide, including Climeworks' plant in Iceland and Heirloom's facility in California. Enhanced mineral weathering and ocean-based methods also exist.
"Direct air capture (DAC) technologies extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere at any location, unlike carbon capture which is generally carried out at the point of emissions, such as a steel plant."
(https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture)
"Heirloom's first direct air capture facility opened in Tracy, California, in November 2023. The facility can remove up to 1,000 U.S. tons of CO2 annually."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture)
"Direct air capture is a suite of technologies that use chemical reactions to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. When air moves over certain chemicals, they selectively react with and trap CO2, allowing the other components of air to pass through."
(https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal)

3. "Man-made CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years"

This massively and cynically understates the problem. While individual molecules cycle in 5-15 years, the elevated concentration persists for centuries to millennia. Roughly 20-35% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over a THOUSAND years. The "40 years" figure has no basis in mainstream carbon cycle science.
"The first 10% goes quickly, but it's not very much of it. The second part goes on a scale of centuries to millennia, but that only gets 80% of it... the last of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere takes tens of thousands of years to leave."
— Ed Boyle, Professor of Ocean Geochemistry, MIT
(https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere)
"Human-generated carbon dioxide is expected to continue warming the planet for tens of thousands of years."
(https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere)
"Given the extremely long life of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature level already observed will persist for several decades even if emissions are rapidly reduced to net zero."
(https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-again-new-record-2023)

I could go on at great length here, for example what Bill Gates said isn't anything to do with the hideous contortion you came up with but I don't want to write a book. I have confined this post to things which are obviously not true, not the full extent of the propagandizing and misinformation.
link to original post

Doug's post seems like a very good update on my dated knowledge of climate change. I was an official reviewer for the federal government of some of the UN reports on climate change during the period 2000-2010 but my knowledge is now dated. For instance my statements about China and India reflect my knowledge as of 2011 so I was unaware of developments in 2018 when they apparently have had some participation in climate change agreements. So thank you Doug for your update..

Removal of carbon from the air is technologically possible but I imagine its still expensive and unequal to the task of stabilizing or reducing global CO2. Every little bit helps, I guess. If this were done on a large scale stabilization and storage of carbon recovered from air capture would also be a very substantial challenge, because the quantities of material are very large.

Water vapor has roughly the same heating effect as atmospheric CO2 and the atmosphere is roughly 4.0% water as compared to 0.1-0.2% CO2. So understanding how atmospheric water vapor levels change as atmospheric CO2 changes represents an important scientific uncertainty.

When I was active as a scientist, all of the international computer models were predicting that the upper strata of the atmosphere should be very hot due to radiation capture by CO2 (I remember predictions as high as 70 degrees Celsius) - but such temperatures are clearly not observed. I don't know if this computer modeling problem has been resolved or not, but this was often cited as an indicator that something was wrong with the computer models.

Quote: gordonm888

Quote: DougGander

Quote: gordonm888

Man-made CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years. There is no way -other than plants - to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO2 emissions from the US and Europe have declined by roughly 10-25%, but this hard-earned reduction has been completely overwhelmed by massive increases in CO2 emissions by China and India. China and India were never signees of any of the Climate Change accords. An inconvenient truth.

If the U.S. instantaneously returned to 1700s technology and life-styles and had near-zero emissions for the next 100 years it would not significantly change the uncertainties that we face from climate change - unless China and India also make massive reductions. Even if China and India were to reduce emissions by a factor of two the CO2 levels in the atmosphere will continue to climb higher and higher.

The only realistic option we have is to figure out how to accommodate and adapt our civilization to whatever small or large changes occur in the climate and in the distribution of water on the Earth.

This is exactly the viewpoint that Bill Gates has recently announced. Frankly, it's been obvious for a long time.
link to original post

There is so much misinformation in this post it is disturbing: An adult male should be able to perform basic fact checks on primary sources before spreading falsehoods like this.

Factually Incorrect Claims ONLY (with sources, you know the things which show you are not making it all up)


1. "China and India were never signatories of any of the Climate Change accords"

Both countries signed the Paris Agreement on the first day it opened for signature (22 April 2016) and have ratified it. Both remain parties to the agreement and have recently reaffirmed their commitments. This claim is straightforwardly false.
"On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40% of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Paris_Agreement)
"Both countries recently reaffirmed their commitment to the accord. India's climate change minister Bhupender Yadav gave a speech at the World Sustainable Development Summit 2025 calling for increased international climate collaboration."
(https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/senator-falsely-claims-china-and-india-left-paris-climate-pact/)
"India and China are still very much a part of the agreement... more than 190 other countries remain committed to the pact."
— Dr Wesley Morgan, climate change diplomacy expert, University of NSW
(https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/senator-falsely-claims-china-and-india-left-paris-climate-pact/)

2. "There is no way—other than plants—to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere"

Direct air capture technology exists and is commercially operational. Multiple facilities are running worldwide, including Climeworks' plant in Iceland and Heirloom's facility in California. Enhanced mineral weathering and ocean-based methods also exist.
"Direct air capture (DAC) technologies extract CO2 directly from the atmosphere at any location, unlike carbon capture which is generally carried out at the point of emissions, such as a steel plant."
(https://www.iea.org/energy-system/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/direct-air-capture)
"Heirloom's first direct air capture facility opened in Tracy, California, in November 2023. The facility can remove up to 1,000 U.S. tons of CO2 annually."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_air_capture)
"Direct air capture is a suite of technologies that use chemical reactions to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. When air moves over certain chemicals, they selectively react with and trap CO2, allowing the other components of air to pass through."
(https://www.wri.org/insights/direct-air-capture-resource-considerations-and-costs-carbon-removal)

3. "Man-made CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for at least another 40 years"

This massively and cynically understates the problem. While individual molecules cycle in 5-15 years, the elevated concentration persists for centuries to millennia. Roughly 20-35% of emitted CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over a THOUSAND years. The "40 years" figure has no basis in mainstream carbon cycle science.
"The first 10% goes quickly, but it's not very much of it. The second part goes on a scale of centuries to millennia, but that only gets 80% of it... the last of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere takes tens of thousands of years to leave."
— Ed Boyle, Professor of Ocean Geochemistry, MIT
(https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere)
"Human-generated carbon dioxide is expected to continue warming the planet for tens of thousands of years."
(https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-we-know-how-long-carbon-dioxide-remains-atmosphere)
"Given the extremely long life of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature level already observed will persist for several decades even if emissions are rapidly reduced to net zero."
(https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-again-new-record-2023)

I could go on at great length here, for example what Bill Gates said isn't anything to do with the hideous contortion you came up with but I don't want to write a book. I have confined this post to things which are obviously not true, not the full extent of the propagandizing and misinformation.
link to original post

Doug's post seems like a very good update on my dated knowledge of climate change. I was an official reviewer for the federal government of some of the UN reports on climate change during the period 2000-2010 but my knowledge is now dated. For instance my statements about China and India reflect my knowledge as of 2011 so I was unaware of developments in 2018 when they apparently have had some participation in climate change agreements. So thank you Doug for your update..

Removal of carbon from the air is technologically possible but I imagine its still expensive and unequal to the task of stabilizing or reducing global CO2. Every little bit helps, I guess. If this were done on a large scale stabilization and storage of carbon recovered from air capture would also be a very substantial challenge, because the quantities of material are very large.

Water vapor has roughly the same heating effect as atmospheric CO2 and the atmosphere is roughly 4.0% water as compared to 0.1-0.2% CO2. So understanding how atmospheric water vapor levels change as atmospheric CO2 changes represents an important scientific uncertainty.

When I was active as a scientist, all of the international computer models were predicting that the upper strata of the atmosphere should be very hot due to radiation capture by CO2 (I remember predictions as high as 70 degrees Celsius) - but such temperatures are clearly not observed. I don't know if this computer modeling problem has been resolved or not, but this was often cited as an indicator that something was wrong with the computer models.
link to original post

Sorry Gordon, but your back and forth with Gandler is what gives climate change deniers their reason to believe…. You literally are an expert, having been involved at the highest level a decade plus back. But it seems like your post is EXACTLY what the climate change deniers point to! Using old or debunked ‘science’. Clearly starting from a biased position. You were man enough to at least admit your present weaknesses on the matter.

That all being said, I love (I can’t remember who?) the post about how global warming is not necessarily all bad. If some species die out, others will thrive. If some areas are unhappy with the climate change, others will be happy.

As far as the ‘carbon capture’, the best mechanism is chlorophyll containing plants. Unfortunately with deforestation we are not going the right way there.

I'll comment if the links are fixed

Quote: odiousgambit

I'll comment if the links are fixed
link to original post

I can do it, but... need an invite from DougGander.

(Posting a link without a tag needs a trailing guard space, or the appended close-paren gets interpreted as part of the URL.)
( Like this. )
(Not like this.)

edit: spelling

Quote: SOOPOO

...As far as the ‘carbon capture’, the best mechanism is chlorophyll containing plants. Unfortunately with deforestation we are not going the right way there.
link to original post

Good news- most of that happens in the oceans. The top 10 feet are full of algae doing photosynthesis. And the warmer the oceans get the more biologically active they are. It's a regulating mechanism.

The carbon cycle being a biological process is constantly experiencing evolution and it will change us before we change it. Those algae are the precursor to all other life here and they terraformed the planet, responsible for the atmospheric conditions we have today and just as they evolved through ages of volcanism, astronomical events, earth's precession on its axis, they will evolve through the dinky little things we do moving around on the surface. We are not that powerful. Volcanism alone releases so much CO2 that what we release is down in the noise of its variation over time.

Hope this serves as a link for dieter.

The 1980 Volcano in Washington State released carbon dioxide equal to about two hours of American automobiles.

Quote: DougGander

Quote: AZDuffman

The problem is you cannot reliably project from these things. Global Warming disciples say the earth is warming by 1-2C and that is a big thing. To get that kind of precision you would need accurate records going back a million years at the least. Fossils do not do this.

The bottom line is the climate has been "changing" for 4.5 billion years and will for 4.5 billion more. It is arrogant to think that we are special because we see a trend over 100. It is arrogant to think that the temperature 150 years ago was the "right" one and we have to do anything possible to get back there, even when we cannot do so.

My take is that global warming hysteria as a cause is past its prime. The average person is tiring of it. The intellectually curious have notice that the disciples have been saying "we have 10 years to do something or else all will be lost" for 40 years now. The doomsday predictions have been discredited.

The next thing to worry about will come around the next decade or so.
link to original post

More quackery and pseudoscience.

1. "To get that kind of precision you would need accurate records going back a million years at the least. Fossils do not do this."

False. Scientists do not rely solely on fossils—and certainly don't need a million years of data to detect 1-2°C changes. Multiple independent methods exist.
"Ice cores preserve annual layers, making it simple to date the ice. Seasonal differences in the snow properties create layers—just like rings in trees."
(https://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/)
Ice core records from the GISP2 project in Greenland extend from 49,981 to 95 calendar years before present with high temporal resolution.
(https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/metadata/landing-page/bin/iso?id=noaa-icecore-2475)
"The PAGES 2K project, a collaboration between thousands of palaeoclimatologists from 125 different countries, published a thorough analysis of global surface temperatures over the past 2,000 years."
(https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/how-proxy-data-reveals-climate-of-earths-distant-past/)
"These ratios allow reconstruction of past temperatures with high precision. δ¹⁸O is one of the primary proxies for interpreting paleoclimate data."
(https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/61042/20251230/how-ice-cores-reveal-climate-history-insights-paleoclimate-science-ancient-data.htm)
Direct thermometer measurements exist back to the mid-1700s, which is sufficient to establish the current warming trend with high confidence.

2. "The climate has been 'changing' for 4.5 billion years... It is arrogant to think we are special because we see a trend over 100 [years]"

Misleading. While climate has always changed, the rate of current change is what distinguishes it.
"Current warming is occurring roughly 10 times faster than the average rate of warming after an ice age. Carbon dioxide from human activities is increasing about 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age."
(https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/)
"The current speed of human-induced CO2 change and warming is nearly without precedent in the entire geological record, with the only known exception being the instantaneous, meteorite-induced event that caused the extinction of non-bird-like dinosaurs 66 million years ago."
— Geological Society of London Scientific Statement
(https://www.lyellcollection.org/doi/full/10.1144/jgs2020-239)
"The magnitude and rate of warming over the last 150 years far surpasses the magnitude and rate of changes at any other time over the last 24,000 years."
— Jessica Tierney, Associate Professor, University of Arizona
(https://www.washington.edu/news/2021/11/10/new-method-shows-todays-warming-unprecedented-over-past-24000-years/)
The issue is not that climate changes—it's that the current rate is geologically anomalous.

3. "The doomsday predictions have been discredited"

False. Climate model predictions have been REMARKABLY accurate.
"Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations."
(https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming)
"10 of the model projections closely matched observations. Moreover, after accounting for differences between modeled and actual changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other factors that drive climate, the number increased to 14. The authors found no evidence that the climate models evaluated either systematically overestimated or underestimated warming over the period of their projections."
(https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/)
"The results of this study of past climate models bolster scientists' confidence that both they as well as today's more advanced climate models are skillfully projecting global warming."
— Gavin Schmidt, Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/202001_accuracy/)
"The physics in these early models was accurate in predicting subsequently observed global surface warming."
(https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w)
The claim conflates media headlines and political rhetoric with actual scientific projections. The IPCC reports have been broadly validated.

4. "The intellectually curious have noticed that the disciples have been saying 'we have 10 years to do something or else all will be lost' for 40 years now"
Strawman argument. Scientific projections have consistently described a gradual worsening of impacts correlated with cumulative emissions—not binary "all is lost" deadlines. What scientists have said is that delaying action increases eventual costs and locks in more severe outcomes. This is not the same as predicting total civilisational collapse by a specific date.
The "10 years" framing typically refers to windows for limiting warming to specific thresholds (like 1.5°C), which have indeed narrowed as predicted. The thresholds themselves haven't been "discredited"—we've simply moved closer to crossing them.
"Neither solar nor volcanic forcing can explain the dramatic warming of the 20th century. Natural changes in these forcings would actually have resulted in a small cooling since 1960 under a normal emissions pathway. Only by adding the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations are the models able to explain the unprecedented warmth we are experiencing."
(https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/climate-change-context-paleoclimate)

It took me only minutes to check the claims of the above posts which are drawn primarily from uncritical right-wing sources sponsored by corporations.
link to original post

Mods. Above appears to be a paid poster and contains political speech. Please investigate.

Quote: DougGander

It took me only minutes to check the claims of the above posts which are drawn primarily from uncritical right-wing sources sponsored by corporations.
link to original post

Are we supposed to be surprised you can find this when there are innumerous organizations that have dedicated themselves to 'the cause'? And there is a little too much 'gotcha' here, for example bashing someone's statement that China and India left the Paris climate agreement without acknowledging that the whole thing is a travesty [see bottom image]. Also, including sites like Wikipedia for debunking is really a bit of dirty pool in the first place, as you must know no skeptical content is allowed there.

However, for myself, I don't have too much trouble with scientists, but instead with the journalists and activists who distort the science. The skepticism has been too ineffective, thus we get crackpots in charge who do more harm than good.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: lilredrooster

.
from google:...

link to original post

I think I see the problem.
link to original post

the deniers didn't like my link

maybe they'll like this one better - but I tend to doubt it - but here it goes anyway

from noaa - The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

"A complex issue

Climate change impacts our society in many different ways. Drought can harm food production and human health. Flooding can lead to spread of disease, death, and damage ecosystems and infrastructure. Human health issues that result from drought, flooding, and other weather conditions increase the death rate, change food availability, and limit how much a worker can get done, and ultimately the productivity of our economy.

Hope for the future

There is still time to lessen the impacts and severity of climate change. We already know many of the problems and researchers continue to find new ones. Experts believe we can avoid the worst outcomes by reducing emissions to zero as quickly as possible. To meet this goal, we will have to invest in new technology and infrastructure, which will spur job growth. For example, we will need to continue improving technology and facilities that capture and process renewable energy. Lowering emissions will also benefit human health, saving countless lives and billions of dollars in expenses related to health.

Infrastructure

Physical infrastructure includes bridges, roads, ports, electrical grids, broadband internet, and other parts of our transportation and communication systems. People often design it to be in use for many years. Because of this, most communities have infrastructure that was designed without climate change in mind.

Existing infrastructure may not be able to withstand extreme weather events that bring heavy rains, floods, wind, snow, or temperature changes. Impacts that result from these events occur in many different ways. For example, increased temperatures require more indoor cooling, which can put stress on an energy grid. Sudden heavy rainfall that exceeds storm water drainage capacity can lead to flooding that shuts down highways, major transportation routes, and businesses.

Coastal infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, water supplies, and much more, is at risk from sea level rise. Nearly 40% of the United States population lives in coastal counties, meaning millions of people will be impacted by related risks. Sea level rise can also lead to coastal erosion and high-tide flooding. Researchers project that some communities could end up at or below sea level by the year 2100. They will face decisions about how to respond. Most likely, communities will both adapt their infrastructure and strategically move away from the shoreline, a process called managed retreat.

Many communities are not prepared to face threats related to climate change. Researchers are studying current and future impacts of climate change on communities and can recommend best practices. Going forward, it is important for communities to invest in resilient infrastructure that can withstand future climate risks. Resilience education is important for every role of our society, including city planners, emergency managers, educators, and risk communicators. Everyone can learn how to prepare for climate change through resilience education."


https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts


.

Quote: billryan

The 1980 Volcano in Washington State released carbon dioxide equal to about two hours of American automobiles.
link to original post

Volcanism in a general sense- all the vents under all the oceans, pretty much all the places where gas is constantly coming up through the earth.

These are just the major ones that are mapped and being currently observed, and erupting right now:

https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/erupting_volcanoes.html

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: lilredrooster

.
from google:...

link to original post

I think I see the problem.
link to original post

the deniers didn't like my link
link to original post

Use of the the slur "denier" comes from "holocaust denier" and is not acceptable usage to attach to skeptics.

Skeptics now realize you are going to bring some more too after this. You must feel very insecure and unsure in your heart about it all if you basically have to keep posting these things. Meanwhile you have no answer for the problem that keeps happening over and over again: Crackpots taking charge

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: lilredrooster

.
from google:...

link to original post

I think I see the problem.
link to original post

the deniers didn't like my link
link to original post

Use of the the slur "denier" comes from "holocaust denier" and is not acceptable usage to attach to skeptics.

Skeptics now realize you are going to bring some more too after this. You must feel very insecure and unsure in your heart about it all if you basically have to keep posting these things. Meanwhile you have no answer for the problem that keeps happening over and over again: Crackpots taking charge
link to original post

Yeah I kind of didn't want to bring up the origin of that term. It's one of the things that leads us to the violence we've been experiencing. It causes this:


What it comes down to is that environmentalism is now a career path, and if one wishes to remain employed on that career path, one does not challenge establishment dogma on global warming. To me, that NOAA site is as credible as a hostage video. That is why there is an endless barrage of papers that can be paraphrased as "Americans are destroying the planet, but what they do in China doesn't matter because..." It gets the money, and there is so much money on the table with this that it will keep the dream alive forever, as long as there is no risk to those playing it.