More Americans and most Republicans now believe in climate change

Fake Science is common now.

 

You do not believe that.

 

Actually you don't "know" that, but keep the faith alive!

 

Expeditions to the pole to measure ice loss get iced in and have to be rescued

Conferences have to be canceled due to blizzards

 

You misunderstood me.

I didn't ask for evidence that the same planet's climate that started warming a few 100,000 years ago hasn't stopped warning yet.

There is no evidence of MMGW, nor is there evidence that the GWA crowd has a history of accurate predictions.

If you find some. Let me know.

 

The more scientists learn the more questions they have.

 

You think that the IPCC's finding is that "the same planet's climate that started warming a few 100,000 years ago hasn't stopped warming yet?"

 

And you think those events mean...what exactly? Why are those events anything more than an ironic event?

 

Of course. Show me that CO2 is a more powerful GHG than H2O, and is more plentiful. Then prove that the bulk of CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made.
That would be the easy part if it were true. Next, you need a plan to stop CO2 production that does not exclude China, India, and the developing world. Even if the US could unilaterally end CO2 production, that would simply reduce the global demand for fossil fuel and make it more economical for the rest of the world to burn more of it. World energy prices would be reduced while US energy prices would sky rocket. I think we all would be horrified by the economic impact of going with all renewable energy.

 

Why do you need to see that CO2 is a more powerful GHG (and that it is more abundant) than H20?

Please read post #150 and let me know your thoughts.

 

Except for one tiny little detail...... CO2 isn't sequestered unless there's a viable process in soil necessary to actually absorb the outputs. Also, simply put, nobody can actually demonstrate the efficacy of the claim that ALL natural CO2 is equally cycled.

So, sorry, your blog sport comment just doesn't have veracity here. And certainly, the natural portion of Human CO2 should be accountable within any absorption process. Can you, for example, tell us how much additional CO2 was released by just one of the western fires this year? Those aren't leaves falling to earth. Nor are the outputs of any of the major volcanic eruptions this year. More, the science behind this blog that you've cited is sketchy, nay, infantile at best.

To put a super fine point on it, we cannot even determine which variant of isotope is derivative of man made influences. The oft cited variant your blog post refers to has actually been debunked by more careful research that indicates that literally no "marker" for human CO2 can be identified with any level of certainty in the atmosphere. I know, you didn't know this, which is why you simply provided the first "google hit" you did.

Slavish devotion doesn't substitute itself for science... Just sayin.

 

This portion is both incomprehensible and irrelevant. The viable process for sequestering CO2 is the growth of trees and plants. Why does all natural CO2 need to be equally cycled? Feel free to find a source that does a better job of explaining your point if you like.

Again, I see no reason why you would need to find out the CO2 produced by one western fire. The CO2 produced by the leave degrading naturally and getting burned is still CO2 produced into the atmosphere. As for CO2 produced by volcanoes - humans are responsible for ~100x more CO2 than all of the CO2 produced by volcanoes each year on average: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

Feel free to post a citation to this "more careful research" rather than asking me to slavishly devote myself to some anonymous poster.

 

They were embarrassing for the environmentalists so changed the packaging on the box they are selling

 

Is there any amount of evidence that could convince you that the people that have been wrong for 40 years are still wrong?

 

This is getting old. You've been corrected on this very point time and time again and yet you continue down this line of misinformation. There's no way you can possibly feign ignorance anymore.

 

What part of it don't they agree with?

 

Fake news. This erroneous claim gets posted almost on a weekly basis here.

 

The climate is changing. It goes through 30,000 year cycles.

That does not mean man's impact is some huge issue.

 

And it always changes for a reason.

Why do you think the Earth is warming today?

 

Ask the towns people if there is any way for the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf to gain their trust again

 

...what?

 

Can you show us a predictions made by the IPCC that you feel is wrong?

I'll start this off. In 2001 the IPCC predicted that the first occurrence of < 10.5 million km^2 of Arctic sea ice extent wouldn't occur until 2040. It actually occurred in 2007. Actually the IPCC has an embarrassing history of underestimating sea ice declines and warming in general. [IPCC AR3 ch 7.5]

 

Towns are already reacting to the threat of climate change.

As White House debates validity of climate report, local officials already at work

 

You'd have to establish why the specifics of a 40 year old prediction are important.

 

Because of the 30,000 year cycle which says it should due to solar cycles.