We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold

I just tend to find that the website which also hosts a great deal of videos about the Earth being flat and/or hollow tends to not be the best source for scientific information.

 

You mean like NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC?

 

It's not a matter of directly adding heat.

The issue is that we change the balance between the sun's contribution and the heat that bleeds to the ultra-cold vacuum of space. Various gasses we allow to collect in our atmosphere change that equation. Any direct heating we do is dwarfed by that equation - rendering direct heating inconsequential.

 

How do the Democrats plan to freeze the Arctic? What will they do to restore the glaciers? What are their plans to chill the ocean given the ice melting seems not to work?

What are their plans if when they make the changes, they cause Antarctica to melt?

 

NASA is not an agency that controls climate. NOAA is not quite so alarmist. IPCC is a political body.

 

well its funny that you are referencing the "consensus" and "reputable" lol Do you think that John Cook (where the 97% came from) is a reputable climate Scientist? hint: he isn't

But if you hate videos here is a link to 97 articles all debunking John Cooks 97% consensus.. or just watch the video and save yourself some time?

http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

"Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings."

 

Were that the case, no doubt that both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Curry to name but two excellent climate scientists would fully back this claim.

Billions more humans and you exclude them from blame? Very very interesting.

 

I don't see this as a "Democrats" issue. Why should partisan politics come into this?

Surely you aren't suggesting that Republicans reject science.

 

If it was a study of the impact of just pollution and the effects on the environment then there would be no viable argument. Simply put, the carcinogens and particulate matter released from daily activity contribute to more deaths per year than car accidents, than terrorism, than gun murder victims... combined. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13522310 - "200,000 early deaths occur in the U.S. each year due to U.S. combustion emissions. The leading causes are road transportation and power generation." Did I give up my car, did I give up my air conditioner...? yes, powered by solar/wind and transported by bicycle. What makes me sick is the lack of regard for other humans when it comes to what makes one happy. Is murder by proxy not an act of murder?

 

I support science and solutions. But how can you fix what you don't think man controls?

Yes, the Democrats whine daily that I am warming earth.

 

There are 4 distinct studies, all using different methodologies and published in different peer reviewed articles that found agreement with the 97% claim.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

Let's for the fun of it, go along with your claims. And your argument.

What has to happen to meet what the left wingers desire so much is a mass extermination of human and animal life.

Simple as that. Are you willing or not?

 

You reject the science specifically because you reject the political solution to the scientific finding.

 

You are terrible at building strawmen.

 

Yes, I am quite certain that both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Curry would agree with the basic science underlying his post and refute the notion that collective heat directly produced by fires and heating units is the cause for the warming.

 

You know they like to eat you while you're still alive?

 

Looks like the US needs to go back to no air conditioning, ride bikes, and use outdoor toilets. Match the living standards of india and china.

Where we messed up was encouraging the rest of the world to want US living standards. We should have remained mum about it, and not made others feel envious. An entire world of middle class consumers with high standards of living would destroy humanity, depleting the earth of resources. So we should have kept our mouth shut.

 

Meanwhile, which recognized group of national or international scientists would you like to cite as supporting your dissenting point of view?

 

I have literally been hearing about this for 20 years. I still remember a debate on this topic in '99 where the coastal cities were supposed to be flooded by now, that the situation was so dire.

When push comes to shove, no one seems to want to actually do or sacrifice anything for something that is so catastrophically "life or death". It's the antithesis of the anemic "think of the children" argument. The politicians are bad, but celebs are the worst. They tell you to use only one square of toilet paper, then say it's a joke when called out. Or do TV spots or appear on camera to tell you what you need to do, yet they must get cross country on that private jet! Worse yet, they have their "fans" (know where the term "fan" comes from?) echo their concerns and then they still buy a new iPhone every six months on schedule, or that change in transportation every few years.....

Worse yet, if by some miracle that "fund" were somewhat successful, the government would subsidize a use for, other things..... The whole debate, ends up being a waste of time....worse yet, it contributes to the CO2 problem with all the hot air, being passed....

 

nope not even close.. as in the catastrophic AGW consensus does not exist. Now if you ask if co2 emissions will raise the temperature of the earth? yes there is a consensus.. every climate scientists knows that co2 is a greenhouse gas.. but that is where the consensus ends.
how much warming will happen? will it benefit the environment, do nothing, or end of days? there is 0 consensus on that.

the 97% is a complete fraud.. and science doesn't work in consensuses anyway. it just takes 1 scientist to blow a whole in a theory that a 1000 other scientists believe

 

"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change." ...just try changing habits and behavior... before you trumpet for extermination... ...that argument... egad.

 

The 97% assertion relates to the consensus regarding the basic tenets of AGW. The basic tenets are: 1) The Earth is Warming and 2) Humans play a significant role in that warming.

97% of climatologists agree with those basic assertions.

As for agreement on the amount of warming, the impact of the warming at certain periods into the future (10, 20, 50, 100 years, etc.), or the percentage of contribution from humans, you are correct to note that there is less agreement on those points.

 

Humans will not need less and less energy. They fight for survival. We fight for progress. We are not consuming energy and emitting heat to the atmosphere for our personal amusement.

Do you want earth cooler or not?

 

Both Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Curry are in the small minority on climate change. Please keep that in mind, as promoting them as representing the science of climate change is not supportable.

I'm not sure who it is that you think I would "exclude them from blame".

 

Geeez....don't tell Al Gore that, he'll go into cardiac arrest.