Global warming

  • A new Stanford University study finds that the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord will cost the U.S. economy several trillion dollars in coming decades.

  • @jammyjaybird Well as we have come to expect the Jamster cites another hard left source: As I pointed out in post 33 above, the origin of “environmentalism” is Marxism, plain and simple. The current crop of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) cultists are control freaks. They are very much like the high priests of old who knew enough about planetary alignments and seasonal cycles to scare the masses into submission, by predicting the future. Now the Algorean control freaks attempt to use cooked books, cherry picked data and computer models to accomplish the same thing: people control.

    There is plenty of evidence that sea water temperatures are directly related to solar radiation. Any rises in temperature can actually be attributed to lower concentrations of aerosols in the atmosphere, not increased carbon dioxide. There is a valid argument to be made that the Clean Air Act did more to increase daytime surface temperatures than CO2 can or ever did. Merely observing lunar eclipses has proven the atmosphere is clearer now. The “CO2 causes Gore-bull warming” scam is of a piece with “wet sidewalks cause rain” or “snotty noses cause colds”. Warmer temperatures cause increased CO2 levels, not the other way around. But there’s billion$ to be made fleecing the likes of Jammy with the green religion and Algore, et al have done all they can to cash in on it.

    Diminishing solar radiation, as in the upcoming grand solar minimum will decrease ocean temperatures, leading to lower CO2 levels, which will not show up for a few hundred years. Consider this:

  • A report by accountancy firm Ernst & Young showed today that the United States has moved up to second place in a ranking of the most attractive countries for renewable energy investment. First place is China.

  • @jammyjaybird

    the United States has moved up to second place in a ranking of the most attractive countries for renewable energy investment.

    The question is why? From Jammy’s linked article: “Even though the United States imposed tariffs on imports of solar photovoltaic and modules this year, the effects have been mostly absorbed by the market and wind projects are not subject to subsidy cuts under a recently-passed U.S. tax reform bill.”

    The answer is tax subsidies. See this and this. The U.S. government has skewed the market to favor elsewhere emissions energy technology. Electric vehicles, solar panels and wind turbines all come from manufacturing processes that generate a lot of highly toxic waste…in places like China. There’s no free ride…

  • Now about that missing arctic ice

  • Humans may have played an active role in the desertification of the Sahara 10,000 years ago.

    Original scholarly article:

  • @jammyjaybird Very interesting article and I suppose it is possible that the Sahara was “manmade” although highly improbable. We really don’t know what happened 10,000 years ago, we can only surmise from what little evidence remains such as ruins (often merely soil stains), trash pits and artifacts. I have “insider” experience in archaeology and anthropology with a family member who was on staff at the anthro dept. of a major university. Let’s just say I spent a lot of time on archaeological sites as a child and teen. What I learned was even the best and most sensible theories often can’t be proven; “we” weren’t there as events unfolded. Much is guesswork and supposition. Carbon dating is notoriously unreliable. I witnessed test results from modern charcoal that showed it was 12,000 years old. Often theories that are patently absurd persist for generations due to institutional inertia. The “old guard” in academia is very resistant to change when it comes to their pet theories, often in the face of overwhelming evidence.

    So let’s just say for the sake of argument that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” (even though it isn’t). And that anthropogenic CO2 is causing “global warming”. Should we basically decrease our quality of life based on predictions of what will happen 100 years from now when we can’t reliably predict the weather 10 days from now (and yes I realize that climatology is different from meteorology)? Or what if there was a free market solution for “decarbonization” that would eliminate the need for very expensive governmental controls and intervention? There apparently is. Consider this:

  • But what if it’s worse than the AGW alarmists merely misreading the data? What if physics shows that CO2 actually contributes to cooling instead of warming? Why would the “experts” hide that (think Climategate here)?

    See this from CO2islife: “Science to a progressive isn’t a method of intellectual exploration, it is a means to a political end. Progressives view science like they view just about everything else, a tool to push their agenda…They have to control the message and be able to silence all dissenting views.”

  • administrators

    @boothe I don’t often get bogged up in the deep science, opting for more common sense approaches to arguments such as this. For the case of CO2 there’s 2 points that have always bugged me:

    1. CO2 is significantly heavier than a lot of the other molecules that comprise our atmosphere (N2, O2, etc). Therefore, wouldn’t a larger quantity of it “fall” to within the altitude at which plants could soak it up for food? This brings me to my next point.

    2. CO2 is plant food. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the bigger and heartier plants will become. This is simple biology and is proven time and time again in industrial scale greenhouse operations who pump CO2 into their greenhouse at 2-3x the rate of Earth’s CO2 levels. It would stand to reason that if the Earth’s CO2 levels were rising, then the plant life on Earth would grow larger as well, thus needing even more CO2 to sustain itself.

  • @jak Check out that CO2islife article (skim it at least) I linked to above. It puts the lie to the *Gore-bull warming" tax and control scam. As I pointed out the other day, the modern environmental movement is nothing more than one more facet to the efforts by the left to impose Marxism on us. They attempt to do this through scare tactics and skewed science. Climategate should have put an end to this, but the leftists in the media and academia are “true believers”. It’s either a religious conviction, a mental illness or both from what I can tell. It really does come down to Pro-Thought vs. Anti-Thought.

    1. Yes CO2 is heavier than air but it does disperse evenly in the atmosphere over time. In extreme cases, like that inactive volcano over in Africa that occasionally pukes out a huge concentrated dose of CO2, it will settle into low lying areas for a while…killing everyone in the vicinity through asphyxiation before it disperses.

    2. Jammy’s Scientific American article addresses the CO2 fertilization effect and of course attempts to a least mitigate the “climate skeptics” claims. AGW is now a religious conviction on the left and SA has become a lot more “progressive” over the years and a lot less scientific (like National Geographic).

    Like I pointed out above though, warmer temperatures drive CO2 outgassing from the oceans. But the planet will not go into a runaway thermal overload condition (unless the sun explodes) like the alarmists claim. There’s plenty of negative feedback in the system. But CO2 is only a minor factor in terms of the “greenhouse effect” anyway. The real “greenhouse gas” is what the left never wants to talk about: Di-hydrogen Oxide. There are huge concentrations of it in the atmosphere and if you breathe enough of it, it will kill you in 3 to 4 minutes. Worse yet, it condenses out into pools! Fall face first into one of these and you’re done (if you can’t swim)! It’s really dangerous stuff that H2O…

  • @boothe most of our atmosphere is still nitrogen

  • @boothe and I honestly think jammy is just trolling us at this point

  • @iattacku I think so too. But he does give us a left-tard target rich environment to fire into. XD

  • Anecdotal, BUT… all time heat records have been set all over the world in the last week.

    From the article:

    In April, Pakistan posted the hottest temperature ever observed on Earth during the month of 122.4 degrees (50.2 Celsius).
    Dallas had never hit 90 degrees in November before, but it did so three times in four days in 2017.
    In late October 2017, temperatures soared to 108 degrees in Southern California, the hottest weather on record so late in the season in the entire United States.
    On Sept. 1, 2017, San Francisco hit 106 degrees, smashing its all-time hottest temperature.
    In late July 2017, Shanghai registered its highest temperature in recorded history, 105.6 degrees (40.9 Celsius).
    In mid-July, Spain posted its highest temperature recorded when Cordoba Airport (in the south) hit 116.4 degrees (46.9 Celsius).
    In July 2017, Death Valley, Calif., endured the hottest month recorded on Earth.
    In late June 2017, Ahvaz, Iran, soared to 128.7 degrees Fahrenheit (53.7 Celsius) — that country’s all-time hottest temperature.
    In late May 2017, the western town of Turbat in Pakistan hit 128.3 degrees (53.5 Celsius), tying the all-time highest temperature in that country and the world-record temperature for May.

    FYI, it is true that the northern hemisphere is warming faster than the southern hemisphere. The reasons are complex, but an important one has to do with the moderating influence of the relative amounts of water in both hemispheres.

  • The Clean Air Act has probably contributed to global warming. I remember real “air pollution” (and water pollution) from the 1960s & 70s. Air that would burn your lungs and even scar your complexion from unregulated industrial sources. Dead fish all up and down the river shores to the point where you had to be careful not to step on a catfish spine. Other than the “pollution islands” of some of the big cities our air and water is remarkably clean now. Consider this:

  • @jammyjaybird

    According to scientists.

    Right. Scientists. Which scientists? Who’s paying them? What are their political leanings? According to “a new study by University of Oxford researchers suggests conservatives are right to be skeptical of scientific establishments, given the history of “scholar activism” in fields like sociology and political science.”

    But let’s say that anthropogenic global warming is real. What difference does it make & who cares? According the big bad computer at MIT, the world ends in 22 years anyway. After all it’s all about the infallible “scientists” & their infallible super computer. Read it and weep (/sarc):

  • If you are a big utility company that doesn’t want to maintain your lines and right-of-ways, have we got a deal for you! Global warming! See, if the utility’s equipment causes a fire, they are liable for that damages. But if they can push a law through that exempts them from liability because “global warming” is the real culprit, the taxpayer has to pick up the tab! Oh…your light bill will still go up, but they’ll get to pocket that money while you get socked with additional taxes! Isn’t crony-capitalism great? (/sarc) Check this out:

  • @boothe i still think nuclear is the best power source. The only downfall is that uranium is even more scarce than fossil fuel

  • @boothe i guess thats where thorium comes in

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to A Kings Castle was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.