If they are cheaper and better, then no government intervention is required. No one goes out of their way to buy a more expensive and less effective solution.
There are a great many things. Vulcanism is a major factor. To give an idea, the single eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 emitted around 10 million tons of CO2 in 9 hours. And they have yet to prove an actual connection between CO2 and global warming. The biggest question many like me have been asking is if the CO2 is the cause, or simply an effect of natural warming. We know that nature is amazingly able to absorb CO2, our planet has been doing that for billions of years after all. Also ocean salinity, the jet stream and ocean currents. Radiation emitted by the sun, dust in the atmosphere, and even the amount of ice that the planet currently has. I knew about "Global Warming" way back in the 1970's. It was explained by my science teacher (a geology major) who explained the relationship between ice ages and climate. One reason an ice age lasts as long as it does is that the ice reflects a lot of light back into space, preventing it from warming the planet as much. And as an ice age ends the surface warms more and more quickly as the ice vanishes and the Earth absorbs more and more sunlight. And there are other things. Like polar ice caps are an aberration in the history of the planet. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is only around 45 million years old (although some think it may be as young as 15 my). They have even found fossils of animals that evolved to live in it's unusual conditions (large eyes for the winter long night, large protruding brows to protect the eyes in the long summer days). Such could not have happened if ice was common before then. And also unlike many believe, as the ice melts the earth also becomes more wet. Not hot and dry like an oven, but hot and moist like a jungle. And plant life flourishes in a time of higher CO2, because that is literally their food. A great many eras in our past had CO2 levels many times higher than we have now, and we know what they were like. Of course, when it comes to things like this I take a geological approach. Which sees time not in years or decades, but in hundreds of thousands and millions of years. And at the time that Antarctica started to freeze, there were palm trees and crocodiles in Northern Alaska. Yes, the Arctic Ocean had a tropical landscape 50 mya. And technically, most geological evidence points to the fact that we are still in the tail end of an ice age. And it will continue to be so most likely until the permanent ice cap in the Arctic vanishes and at most becomes primarily a seasonal one. At most, the presence of any kind of Arctic Ice Cap is only around 5 million years. In geologic time, that is literally the blink of an eye. It takes 60 times that long to even convert a layer of plants into coal. And speaking of coal and CO2, to me one of the most troubling things is not CO2 emissions, it is deforestation of the rainforests. Often called the "lungs of the planet", we are loosing them at an alarming rate. As in over 20,000 square miles per year just in the Amazon basin. If anything, that is more likely to be the cause of CO2 increase than anything else. It is not that we are dumping in more than the planet can handle, we are destroying the way our planet deals with it. 200 years ago, the Amazon absorbed way more CO2 than it emitted. Today, it is barely ahead of it's own natural CO2 production. And soon, it will absorb less than it emits. That to me is the real danger.
It is apparent that nobody's mind is going to be changed by books, papers, videos, graphs, facts or arguments. This is true of the Global Warming Fraud, the Evolution Fraud, and the Atheism Fraud. We believe what we want to believe. "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com
Bjorn Lomborg says America would spend $100 trillion over the next century to follow the Paris Climate Change Accord signed so idiotically by Barack Obama and it would do NOTHING to change earth's climate. HELLO! This is a cult of fools pushing Al Gore's Big Lie.
Bjorn Lomborg? Seriously? Get a better source. http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DishonestDane.pdf
Here, let me break that down for others, since that entire article was mind-numbing and largely pointless. In short, in Denmark there is a body that convenes to determine if a body of work is "scientific" enough. That is the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. And yes, it is indeed a part of their Government, it falls under the Ministry of Research and Information Technology. They formed a "Working Party" in 2002 to look into complaints that some charged that his work "The Skeptical Environmentalist", Cambridge University Press, 2001 was not "scientific enough". And for 3 months, this Working Party investigated not only his work, but articles that extracted from his work, reviews of his work, and others who took information from his work. And the reviewers were who exactly? Maybe other peers in Climate science? Nope. The Chairman of this group was a medical doctor. Then a Doctor of Philosophy, a Doctor of Law, a Doctor of Political Science, and a Doctor of Agronomy. Yes, obviously 5 individuals all well suited to determine if a book about the environment was "sciency" enough. And in the end, what was their impression of this book of over 500 pages? Well, essentially it was a split decision. With some members saying it was "manifest onesidedness", while others saying that while they could not agree with the consensus of the author, the science used was following in accordance with scientific standards. In the end, they sent a recommendation that no actions be taken to the DCSD. And of course the DCSD looked at this report by their own Working Group, looked again at the complaints, and the Chairman of the DCSD simply made the decision that it was not science. I am so glad we have no such governmental body here in the US as they appear to have in Denmark. Where people with Doctorates in areas that are in no way subject matter experts are in a position to determine if a body of scientific work is good enough. Now myself, I do not know what he wrote, and I do not care. The decision seems to stink highly of politics, especially since the working group (made up of individuals not affiliated with the aspect of science involved in the book) came up with a split decision that was saying it should be left alone. And I would be just as dismissive of this group if the topic was Computer Virus and WORM detection and prevention, Vulcanology and Plate Tectonics, or anything else where it appears that there was not a single expert on the field involved in the Working Group.
You either read hurriedly or selectively. The process DOES include field-specific analyses by experts. The bulk of the report recounts the analyses of a panel of experts recruited by Scientific American to examine Lomborg's writings about their particular field. Regarding climate science in particular, the report contains a detailed page-and-a-half take down of Lomborg's approach by an expert in the field. You mention the subcommittee was split, without explaining that the REASON there was a split is that half the panel thought his book was not actually intended to be SCIENCE, and as such did not fall under the board's purview. It was a process objection, not a substantive one, and obviously does not reflect well on the book -- they were essentially arguing that the book should not be taken seriously. With the committee split on process grounds, the full DCSD board voted to assess the book. This is hardly ominous or evidence of bias. The board considered bringing in new field-specific experts of their own, but decided that was unnecessary, as the Scientific American panel and the subcommittee's own work had found more than enough evidence on which to base a conclusion that Lomborg's work was not based on sound scientific research. Which ought to be blindingly obvious, since Lomborg, in sourcing his claims, appears to draw no distinction between peer-reviewed research papers and general media articles. He also appears to undertake no meaningful confirmation or re-analysis of the sources he cites. If it supports his ideas, he references it uncritically. And he has no problem making all sorts of claims about fields he knows nothing about. And he mixes it all with personal attacks and unproven allegations of wrongdoing against people he disagrees with. I repeat: Find a better source. Lomborg is a provacateur, not a credible scientist.
Isn't the weakening magnetic field a harbinger of global warming or is it global cooling? Or the magnetic field isn't weakening, as if about to flip. Moi Support Static Earth. Restore Gondwanaland
I'm sure you're good with Al Gore, who parrots the Climate Change Sharia as you so obviously do. Yours is the Fallacy of the Ad Hominem Argument. You don't challenge the argument, you simply attack the PERSON stating it. That is patently ignorant. How did two bicycle mechanics do in flying after the President of the Royal Society, Lord Kelvin, said in 1895, "Heavier than air human flight is impossible." What a GREAT SOURCE Lord Kelvin was, right raytri? Oh, except that he was dead wrong. Except for that. Then there was another great source you will approve of, raytri. Captain Edward Smith, of Titanic notoriety. Most experienced, most qualified ship captain available in 1912. Killed 1500 innocent people through neglect and ignorance. He couldn't even properly supervise the abandoning of the doomed ship.
When I quote Al Gore, please be sure to point it out. Um, my link was a detailed criticism of his methodology and sourcing.
Ten thousand dissenters from the Global Warming Fraud have degrees in science. NOAA and NASA have dissenters. Here is an example: https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/0...c-explains-why-climate-change-theory-is-bunk/
When CFC's were found to be a problem these alternatives didn't exist. Legislation moved ahead. Solutions were found. And, the combined effort of the world caused improvement in the ozone layer. This is a major success story for mankind, and we just need to have the balls to do it again.
So, a drop in the bucket. It's not hard to find 10,000 brainwashed cult rubes who claim some sort of technical background. Most deniers can't argue actual science. They just post links and demand that everyone believe their Holy Scripture.
Volcanoes emit less than 1% as much CO2 as humans. They're insignificant. They've proved it. We see the stratospheric cooling, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands, and the increase in backradikation, which can only be caused by greenhouse gas increases. Negative. The earth is going back into an ice age. The earth has been slowly cooling for the past 8000 years, and it should have kept right on slowly cooling. Instead, it suddenly shifted to fast warming. That would indicate the fast warming is not natural.
Detailed criticisms of Climate Change Sharia abound and many can be accessed from http://TheGlobalWarmingFraud.wordpress.com Consensus is NOT science, though Eco-Hypocrites and Leftists pretend that it is.
Consensus is the result of science. It is the culmination of the abundance and consilience of evidence that points to a single truth. FACT: The Earth is warming. FACT: GHGs are a significant factor for the warming especially after WWII. FACT: Humans are lofting huge qualities of GHGs into the atmosphere.
I woke up last night with an epiphany. Any mention of water vapor as THE dominant greenhouse gas sends AlGorians into yet another insane tirade. But science, ... science marches on. AlGorians claim water vapor is "different" from deadly carbon dioxide. Water vapor is just a "forcing" agent, they claim, substituting wordplay for science. Here are the infrared spectra for carbon dioxide and water vapor: The far greater area in blue for water vapor indicates the amount of radiation it absorbs. Moreover, water vapor averages 1.5% of the atmosphere which is 15,000 ppmv. (Parts per million volume [equivalent]) So water dominates qualitatively and quantitatively, by large margins. I cover up nightly with a sheet and a cover over it. Eureka! Thought experiment: Heat two large pots filled with water to boiling. Turn off the heat and wrap the first with a thin sheet, called "carbon dioxide." Write 400 ppm on it. Wrap the second with a down comforter, called "water vapor." Write 15,000 ppm on it. Now tell me, class, which pot full of water will stay hot longer?
Deep. "Science", right? All ice in northern and southern hemispheres is floating, ya think? On top of the Himalayas? The Andes? The Antarctic Ice Shelf, where the volume of ice is growing by some 200 cubic miles per year, and by the way, 90% of the world's ice currently sits?
'normal' is dependent upon one's perspective... 100's of years of zero flooding & then continual flooding could in fact be 'normal'
H2O is different than CO2 mainly due its thermodynamic relationship with temperature and the fact that it isn't a well mixed gas like CO2. Oh, and H2O is just a feedback and amplifier. It's CO2 that is a forcing agent. You have that backwards. Nope. There is a net decrease in global glacial volume. This accounts for a large portion of the sea level rise current. Thermal expansion of the ocean accounts for a large fraction as well. Not that any of my comments will matter to you. I'm pretty sure you put me on ignore within a few days of me joining the forum because I called you out on misinformation.
Actually, it isn't. Consensus is the result of orthodoxy. Lots of examples over the years, this one isn't particularly special now is it? But, like so many of the past, like Eugenics, this one has the benefit of having to introduce totalitarian authoritarianism in order to adopt the tenants of the orthodoxy. Again, not science, nor likely to ever be science. And yet, here you are, spouting it, religiously, again. Yes, the Earth is warming, as it should be. And yet, you doubt that it should. Why again? GHGs, like Water are the main driver of the blanket, but of course, you can't wage war on water can you. Folks would figure out the deception. Yes, Humans are emitting GHGs, but at a tiny fraction of what the world around us does all by itself. You ignore this, continuously. And you cannot tell us what nature should actually do, just the tired catechism of the faith you keep. So, you hide, in the shadow between truth and apostasy. And there you are, revealed.
