More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

LOL - And you think the American people needed the Trolls from Olgino to convince them that it was a bad idea to elect a corrupt scofflaw who pledged to continue the failed policies of this nihilistic idiot?



Obviously, the Left will say and do anything to avoid taking responsibility for its own bad ideas, bad policies and bad candidates...

 

I think 95% of the worlds population agree that climate change exist. The

99% of all species that has existed on Earth are now extinct and will continue to go extinct as this is part of evolution of our blue marble. Some are attributed through human intervention but also some are here because of human intervention. The Buffalo and Grey Wolf is a great example of success of human intervention .

Also, this planet is 100% cleaner than it has been just over the last 4 decades. The Cuyahoga River is just another great example of humans going terribly wrong, but then righting the wrong of their ways. So contaminated that self ignited through spontaneous combustion. The river was void of life through miles of the river. Through a serious reclamation effort, the river is now full of life and people can once again enjoy it's beauty.


We have not been the best stewards of our planet but we have (at least Western societies) made VAST improvements to clean up our act. Heck even the Ozone has started healing.

 

Tesla can easily just start giving away their solar roofs, which would cut the power grid by oh...75% maybe. AMAZING instant change in our country. The power companies could go out of business as well as Tesla and we'd have to produce batteries like mad and find ways to dispose of them all. Every car manufacture can also create EVs for less than $20k, as well, which would change the country overnight.....but they're go bankrupt too. Who pays for it all? You talk as if things just happen...they don't. It has NOTHING to do about wanting or not wanting to do things to make the environment cleaner. Its about WHO THE **** PAYS FOR IT?

If money didn't exist and we all worked for free and we just did whatever felt good, we could get a lot done overnight...but this isn't Star Trek. This isn't fantasy or sci-fi.

Money is being spent to travel to Mars...****ING Mars. DO you understand how utterly pointless that is? We could more easily colonize Antarctica and every inhabitable desert in the world, since at least you can breath and it doesn't take a fracking space ship and 5 yrs to get there. But a bunch of geniuses along with the same people who want to save the planet think terraforming another planet is easier than just terraforming our own? HUH? Really think about the complete stupidity of it all. Nice priorities.

 

More Taxes meaning More Power & Control

In case anyone missed it, UN Warmer Chief Christiana Figueres laid out the "prescription" several years ago:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

...and in case anyone was unclear, she reiterated

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Of course, Ms. Figueres and her comrades aren't the first people who handed themselves the task of intentionally changing the economic development model that has reigned for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution, aka Capitalism.

They're certainly good at it's flattering themselves, aren't they? However, truly smart individuals know better than to make the mistake of confusing consensus with intelligence, which appears to be the thrust of the OP.

Back to France, who can blame the gilets jaunes for being unimpressed? Not I, nor yourself if I read you correctly...

 

It's because WV is in a stable equilibrium with the temperature. Any perturbation that makes WV concentrations deviate from this equilibrium level put a pressure on the system to get WV to lock back into it's equilibrium. If concentrations get too high a force is applied to drive it lower. If concentrations get too low a force is applied to drive it higher. If something else increases the temperature first (say increased solar radiation from the Sun) then WV concentrations increase as they chase a new and higher equilibrium level. This increase in WV amplifies the temperature increase. However, this feedback is self-limiting. The amplifying effect has a dieoff curve where the radiative forcing declines quickly as the equilibrium level is readjusted up in ever smaller steps. The process works in reverse as well. The fundamental reason why the WV feedback is self-limiting is because H2O can both trap outgoing radiation and it can block incoming radiation. WV under the equilibrium level means less clouds and more incoming radiation, but less trapping of outgoing radiation. WV over the equilibrium level means more clouds and less incoming radiation, but more trapping of outgoing radiation. The blocking effect is much bigger than the trapping effect.

CO2 works in a completely different way. Unlike H2O it does not have the ability to block incoming radiation. All it can do is trap outgoing radiation. This fact alone is the primary reason why CO2 can catalyze temperature changes whereas H2O cannot. And since CO2 also acts through a feedback process where higher temperatures lead higher emissions which lead to higher temperatures and so on the process is fundamentally runaway (though effectively self-limiting on Earth due to resource constraints). It does not have the same self-limiting constraints as H2O. However, unlike Venus and for reasons different than H2O it still has different mechanism by which the feedback is self-limiting. This is a result of the way the natural carbon cycle works specifically on Earth. There just simply isn't enough CO2 available in the carbon budget for concentrations to get over 4000 ppm or so even if we did burn all available fossil fuel reserves and nature released all of it's own reserves. The feedback may spiral out of control initially, but once the reserves are depleted the emission flux gradually declines as it starts it's self-limiting phase.

Here's the big takaway. H2O's self limitation on feedback is on the order of days. CO2's self limitiation on feedback is on the order of millennia. And the mechanisms by which they self limit their feedbacks is completely different. H2O 's self limiting behavior is fundamental. CO2's self limiting behavior is a function of available carbon reserves and the physical processes by which those reserves participate in the carbon cycle.

By the way, this was all figured by the Nobel prize winning chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. He correctly predicted that the planet would one day warm as a result of anthroprogenic CO2 release. He even correctly predicted the more aggressive warming of the higher latitudes and explained how the ocean would scrub out excess emissions. And all of this happened before the 1900's.

This is a common myth. CO2 does not control everything. It's just one among many pieces of the puzzle. Modern climate science theory examines all mechanisms and agents that effect the climate and consider the net effect of all of them in tandem. We just happen to live in an era where the GHG effect is the dominating effect. But, it's not always like that and the current regime won't persist forever either. Each factor ebbs and flows with time. It's always the net effect of all mechanisms and agents that drives the climate system. It's never just one thing. Though it is common for one or two factors to dominate over all of the others for relatively short periods of time. On to your second point...I agree. People are either going to have to accept undesirable energy alternatives or accept that the Earth is going to warm.

 

Yep. She's talking about transforming the economic model from one that is not sustainable, dependent on a finite resources, and which has an ever increasing risk catastrophic collapse to one that is sustainable, uses energy options that will last forever, and which lowers the risk of worldwide collapse. That is absolutely a noble goal and one which I fully support.

 

They have the same effect. Different isotopes do not alter the photon capture process in anyway. We can track our contributions to the atmosphere via mass accounting and via isotope analysis. The atmospheric CO2 concentration trends have our fingerprint on it. But, the molecules, regards of whether they are emitted by nature or by man behave the exact same way in regards to the greenhouse gas effect.

 

My lament is that we come up with vague words and phrases in order to blur the topics under discussion. This new-ish activity all but eliminates the possibility of substantive discussion.

"Climate change" is a great example of this. I don't understand why people go along with this trend. Being the cynic, that I am, I almost believe that there is some cabal, who seek to sow instability in society by creating roadblocks to effective communication between the various factions.

 

For true. The fact that Macron caved... so rapidly too. Instructive. This isn't about helping the people. It's about creating yet another artificial scarcity that costs folks more to enrich the very few. And from that power, to further enslave the people to be dependent of the "crumbs" (thanks Hillary) they offer....

 

So, as mentioned previously, you cannot determinatively ascribe isotopal attribution though. As all possible isotopes are created both anthropogenic as well as natural sources.

 

Now you make it sound like global warming is a good thing!

I think there are important differences between the development of autos & planes and the development of wind and solar. Autos & planes created their own demand because they were faster and cheaper than horses, and did not require tax dollars to build Ford Motors. Meanwhile "clean" energy depends on things like Solyndra. No one has come forward with a way to get more power at lower cost which would create its own demand. Putting a solar array on my roof is only attractive when government makes other taxpayers pay for it and maintain it.

Another example is when we switched from whale oil to petroleum. We did that because whale oil was far more expensive than the oil in the ground, not because of any Save the Whales movement or concern.

I don't think the economy improves when energy prices go up or the price of any needed goods or services increases. If it did, I can think of lots of ways to increase energy prices, food prices, clothing prices, etc.

 

Uhhhh.

The Paris Accords exempted China and India from compliance. You knew that, right?

It was a typical Progressive UN anti-American agreement that transferred wealth from the US to our trading competitors.

 

Yes you can. And it's already been done.

No they aren't. Fossil fuels have a different ratio of 13C/12C than does natural emission.Also fossil fuels are completely depleted in 14C whereas natural emissions do contain 14C.

I bet you can figure this out. Why do natural emissions contain 14C, but fossil fuels do not?

 

As noted, the method isn't determinative. Ignore that, doesn't mean that it isn't true. So, when the isotopal versions are produced in nature, we can't "mark" non natural additions by simple attribution. Sorry, doesn't work this way.

 

You make a good point that H2O can work both ways. (My favorite small example is looking at a weather map of Texas any day of the week and compare Houston to El Paso temperature extremes. El Paso typically gets a lot hotter in the day but cools off a lot faster at night.)

But the H2O feedback works whether it was humidity that cause an upward fluctuation in temperature or another driver (like CO2) caused it. CO2 does not need to self-correct in isolation. It interacts with the effects of humidity and over a period of many decades the planet's flora.

 

Then prove it. I'd love to see you try.

 

The investigation has been going on for two years now. If the evidence exists, then where is it?

 

Of Russia interfering in the 2016 election specifically? There was a joint report from the DNI, CIA, and FBI released before Mueller's investigation was even a thought and Mueller himself has indicted nearly two dozens Russians and three Russian companies for their illegal actions.

What sort of evidence are you looking to find?

 

Gosh 2013: Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change research

Notice the 140 citations at the end from which they draw to summarize the method.

Now it's your turn. Show me an equivalent piece of work that falsifies isotope analysis.

 

There are things more valuable than money, and things that are so valuable that no monetary value can be placed on them. One of those is life itself. How are you or your children or your grandchildren going to live when temperatures along the equator surpass 160*F? How are they going to cope with the tsunami of migrations rushing into the U.S. fleeing that heat? Yet you seem to have no concerns about this. You act as though the money is the only concern. That's truly mystifying.

 

The evidence is out there and it's very convincing. There is nothing more difficult to break into than a closed mind.

 

I like your positivism & optimism. We need more like it in the world.

 

Millions of kids believe in Santa Claus too.

 

And yet none of the indictments were for doing anything to actually interfere with the election, or otherwise do anything to assist Donald Trump in becoming president of the united states.

Actual, undeniable proof that demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt, that Donald Trump actually became president of the united states solely because of interference by an outside nation.

 

You make some valid points that deserve attention and debate. I just don't feel global warming is a problem we can measure with costs--profits or losses. We either pay the price to deal with it now while it's possible to make a difference, or every one pays later by facing the dangers that will accrue thru natural disasters of unimaginable force. This year illustrates what's coming, with its record breaking hurricanes & wildfires. Those records broken held for decades or centuries, yet were all broken within one season. That's not normal. Pretending it is, is worse than foolish. It places the entire planet and all life on it, in jeopardy.