Global Warming dicussion

I told you, I’m making fun of you and the other “Emperor’s new clothes “ followers of the young lady.

What’s sad is your red herrings.
she has been described by her parents as being autistic and obsessive compulsive, that is her diagnosis, repeating it is NOT making fun of her unless you are a lying Leftist!
Know any of those?

The consensus running for cover already, trying to save their careers.
Of course they were lying all along, everyone knew that fifty years from now there would be less emissions, liars!


www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51281986

You continue to have trouble understanding the articles you post, lol. Let's cite two key points:

"Arctic sea ice is a reliable indicator of a changing global climate. They pay the most attention in September when Arctic sea ice shrinks to its smallest extent each year. Measured by satellites since 1979, this minimum extent has been decreasing by as much as 13.7 percent per decade." This directly contradicts your previous post about the extent of Arctic sea ice. How do you reconcile this with your own statements? 

"One study paradoxically suggests that ocean warming and enhanced melting of the Antarctic ice sheet is causing the small but statistically significant sea ice expansion in the region. Another study suggests that rain caused by a warmer climate has been causing an influx of fresh water into the Southern Ocean, making it less dense and inhibiting oceanic heat from reaching sea ice in the Antarctic. To date, there is no consensus on the reason for the expansion." So it turns out that the "small" expansion of Antarctic sea ice is the result of melting of the ice over land and/or more rain--both effects of global warming. Duh! The "small" increase in sea ice thus is meaningless; far more important is the melting of the ice sheet over the Antarctic continent. That's because melting ice on land flows into the oceans, raising global water levels, whereas melting or freezing ice already in the oceans has no effect on water levels.

Good news, having nothing whatever to do with Trump. Please note this: "After two years of growth, global emissions remained unchanged at 33 gigatons in 2019, even as the world economy grew by 2.9 percent." Contrary to the argument you've been making for years, shifting away from fossil fuels has not destroyed economic growth. Duh!

 
So, are you asking me to answer for your ignorant neighbors?

The economy's been humming since Bush II, Obama, and Bernanke saved it from a second Great Depression in 2009. Trump's policies have slowed growth a bit ("Obama’s Last Three Years Of Job Growth All Beat Trump’s Best Year" - Forbes), mostly because of his useless trade war tariffs, but basically he inherited a healthy economy and produced less-than-expected damage. That's mostly because he's running record deficits, creating a Keynesian stimulus to offset the costs of the tariffs. As long as we can borrow at near-zero real interest rates that will work; it's not actually a magic formula.

I see how we got here, but can we keep this on global warming and argue the politics of economics in a different thread? Thanks

Man, that's just...dumb:

"Then on September 10, the firm announced that it expected $5.6 billion in write-downs (reductions in the estimated or nominal value of an asset) for its “toxic” assets and a $3.93 billion loss for the third quarter. In addition, Lehman said it planned to spin off $50 billion of toxic assets into a separate publicly held corporation. In response to this announcement, the major ratings agency Moody’s threatened to downgrade Lehman’s debt ratings, and on September 12, Federal Reserve Chairman Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others met at the Fed in New York to discuss the firm’s fate. Despite concerns about the consequences a Lehman Brothers collapse would bring, the federal government and representatives of the administration of President George W. Bush ultimately refused to bail out another investment bank." link Where do you get your information? Oh, that's right, lol!

Quick, everybody run for high ground! Not.

electroverse.net/official-data-reveals-arctic-sea-ice-is-growing-again/

I told you OB, CONSENSUS is not how science works, the consensus of scientists in the past has been debunked over and over, no, the earth wasn’t flat, no, there wasn’t spontaneous generation, bleeding a sick person didn’t make them better, etc.etc.
Science is when 1 guy goes off on his own and makes new discoveries and proves old ones to be wrong.
Consensus in science really means POLITICS in science.

Allow me to sum up the entire situation for you in a way that even a Leftist might understand it.

1. Overall, we are in a somewhat warm period, not the warmest ever, not by a long shot but in a warm period.This may or may not be 100% due to the burning of fossil fuels and release of CO2 , it may be 50% because of them, it may be 10% because of them, there is no consensus LOL on that.

2. The worst case scenarios are unstoppable and contrary to LEFTIST lies, those scenarios aren’t catastrophic, low lying areas that have had issues forever will continue to have them and they will get a little worse, we might actually have to give up on some of them and move people to higher ground, the good news is, there is plenty of higher  ground and it will be warmer and more habitable, easier to grow food on and won’t require as much energy to keep warm in.

3. It would obviously be better to get rid of the internal combustion engine but this can only happen over time.

4.No we dont need Globalists/ Leftists controlling our use of energy and redistributing our jobs, economies and wealth to other countries who can’t stop using fossil fuels fast enough for the Leftists liking or frankly, their desires.

5.Treaties like Paris which put all of the pain on the U.S. who is energy rich while the Chinese and India etc all continue to pollute is not my idea of saving the planet, it’s my idea of hurting the U.S. because again, that what is between the Lefties and their ultimate goals.

Ignorant? How many accepted CONSENSUS scientific facts have been changed even in the past 10 years?
Shall I list maybe 50 concerning just medicine, nature and the environment?


No OB, I don't think we should take any action against it, because it's futile and way, way to small a return for the amount of money involved, you and the LEFTISTS do but not really, you just want control of our every day life.

Nothing is broken, the planet changes, either from Volcanic activity, earthquakes, meteor strikes, the sun and things change, just the way it is.

A few hundred thousand years ago during the last ice age some Kodiak/grizzly Bears, also known as Brown bears decided to stay in the coldest areas and over a few thousand years their color changed to white and their snouts grew a bit and their paws adapted to more swimming but basically they are just Kodiak/Grizzly bears and that's pretty much the same with almost every species.
They adapt and change, yes, losing the Dodo Bird or Moa or even the Tasmanian Tiger (thylacine) to human hunting, is sad but not tragic, something else always adapts, changes and grows to take their place:
Here's the video of the last remaining tasmanian Tiger though unconfirmed sightings have occurred that suggest maybe there are a few left:

www.google.com/search?q=tasmanian+tiger+video&rlz=1C1QJDB_enUS619US620&oq=tasmanian+toger+&aqs=chrome.3.69i57j0l7.7579j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

See, LL, Mother Nature is not reading right-wing bloggers. She's just doing what she was predicted to do in response to all that CO2. And now the effects are becoming manifest:

"BOSTON — Famous for its role in America’s war for independence, this city is now fighting the rising seas. Boston is raising streets, building berms and even requiring that new high-rise condominium developments on its harbor acquire “aqua fences” — portable metal barriers that can be dragged to the street and anchored to the pavement to deflect incoming waves...The sea that surrounds Boston crept up nine inches in the 20th century and is advancing ever faster toward the heart of the city. And as climate change accelerates, the pace of sea-level rise in Boston is expected to triple, adding eight inches over 2000 levels by 2030, according to a report commissioned by the city...Rising sea levels have already increased the frequency of flooding from relatively normal tides and rainfalls. In 2017, Boston saw a record 22 days with high-tide flooding... sea level rise in Boston began to pick up speed only after 1940. One-third of the 100 most extreme storm events took place in the past dozen years, including in 2018, which saw some of the highest water levels measured since European colonization." link

It's a shame the Birthplace of the American Revolution is being swallowed by the Atlantic Ocean, no? You might want to get up there while you still can find those sites. And do come down to Mt. Vernon again soon; the Potomac also is rising.



EDIT: "Temperature in Antarctica soars to near 70 degrees, appearing to topple continental record set days earlier" link Well, we may lose Boston and Mt. Vernon, but maybe we'll get a new winter vacation spot at the South Pole, eh?

It's actually amusing reading your mindless posts on this topic, LL. For example, NO ONE fears the melting of sea ice in terms of rising sea levels. They measure it because it's an indicator of rising temperatures. Every scientist--every kid who's taken high school physics--knows melting ice in water does nothing to the volume of the water. What's worrisome is the melting of ice on land, and that's happening in Greenland, atop the Alps, and most worrisome, over Antarctica. Teslas and Mars have nothing whatever to do with this.

You do understand the concept of statistical variation, right? I mean, you do follow the stock markets, do you not? You've noticed that they go up or down almost randomly from day to day, but that over a longer period of time there's a discernable trend, no? Arctic ice cover data are just like that.

So, this is a key fact: "Arctic sea ice extent for January 2020 was 13.65 million square kilometers (5.27 million square miles), placing it eighth lowest in the satellite record along with 2014." Now, when they say eighth lowest, that's in the context of saying that ALL the "lowest" readings have come in this century. In fact, every year since 2001 the Arctic ice sheet has been smaller than the average for 1981-2010. You can check for yourself on this interactive map: nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/. I know because I just did it.

Ha, why is called Greenland?

could it be that when the Vikings got there in wooden hulled ships, ships that had no issues with icebergs , tha it was warmer and t the land was GREEN and then it got cold again and became white?
Could it be  that other issues besides the burning of fossil fuels could be at play?
we will see.