Gulf Stream

[Leftfield 2,684]

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Was (is) it a blatant lie that it will be too late to do anything about climate change by the year 2030?  We are to believe we should reduce CO2 by 45% by then and be net zero by 2050 or it’s too late.   Isn’t that just fear mongering?

No, it's to stave off more pronounced effects. The goal is to keep warming less than 2 degrees Celsius above the baseline. 

It's been pointed out in the past that many of the front people for these issues are prone to sensationalism and using worst-case scenarios, which ends up being a disservice to the attempts to make people aware because it makes them skeptics when those scenarios don't happen. That part is understandable - I completely agree with it. What isn't understandable is that you continue to ignore the actual science of it, even when it's handed to you in this forum (often to rebut the incorrect assertions from the scientists you find that disagree).

 

19 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Estimtes of $50 Trillion to get to net zero by 2050 and *the scientists* don’t know if that money will lower the temps at all, especially with China not cooperating.

It almost assuredly won't reduce temperatures, because CO2 levels have already jumped. What it will do is keep temperatures from spiking further and causing even worse conditions.

I see you got your usual jab in at *the scientists*. Just can't help yourself, even when it's talking heads that are misusing the data that well-meaning scientists are producing.

 

15 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Sure there is an option 3, Its called wait and see.  The extremist on the left are the ones that are pushing the do it now or it’ll be too late.

Wait and see what? Hardcore denialists will never admit there's a problem. Even if the predictions come true, some of them will find something else to blame it on. The others will blame the government for not doing something sooner.

You are also continuing to ignore the fact that if we "wait and see" it will be too late to prevent catastrophic effects. You leave no room that you may be incorrect, otherwise you wouldn't be saying this.

 

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The reason for the pushback is those predictions (none of them) have come true. None.

This is such an idiotic blanket statement. It's demonstrably false, so I can't understand why you write it. Climate models have actually proven out to be quite accurate in their predictions, even models from the early 80's (including Exxon's), yet you say nothing has come true? Do you have any desire to have an honest debate about it?

 

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Now they want you to believe they have the key now and we (the citizens of the world) should believe they can change the whether (climate).

And once again, you're misstating. This is not about controlling the weather, it's about cleaning up our mess and allowing nature to follow it's normal cycle.

 

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You want America to be fiscally responsible; do you believe America sending $50 trillion by 2050 to achieve net zero is fiscally responsible? 

That $50 trillion figure was from a Morgan Stanley report and it referred to worldwide action, not just America. Yes, America would shoulder a large portion of that burden, but don't misstate it. 

You also discount the costs of inaction. How many trillions will be spent fighting the effects of warming? What effects would we not even be able to effectively combat? 

Your statement of fiscal responsibility is predicated upon nothing happening even if we don't do anything.

 

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Assuming all the pundits are right, why are who ever is in control of this narrative  overlooking what China, India and other developing countries are doing?

Who is discounting China and India? Their emissions make it even more imperative that we do something. We're in a hole - no reason to make it any harder to climb out.

As the article homer posted points out, we are disproportionately to blame for all this. We led the world in developing many of the industries that led to the lives of relative comfort we lead, and other countries simply began to adopt it. Other countries are also supplying many of the goods we buy that we really don't need, and that adds to the problem. Do you not think we have a responsibility to lead the way out if we can? Do we want someone else cleaning up our mess? 

 

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The climate has changed for millions of years, there is no denying that.  The issue is why now do we think we can control it?

Misstatement.

 

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

And at what cost?  And why, to save future poor people at the expense of the poor people now?  

Will be a lot more than "poor people" needing to be saved if nothing is done.

 

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So if we pass one of those goals, how long does it take to see if that goal has really worked?  That is where the lie is, you can set goals, but does it really work?

If it doesn't happen in your lifetime, then it's not worth it? How selfless of you. I'm sure your progeny appreciate it.

 

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

So was global cooling predicted in the 70’s.

Your reliance on this is nauseating. The fallacy of using it has been pointed out many times.

 

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 The government is pushing an extreme view and is locked in one one cause.  Are they looking at others?

I'm sure they would welcome any input. All the efforts I've seen from denialists have been to refute current scientific consensus. I haven't seen anyone put forth an alternate explanation. Please enlighten us when you find it, as I'm sure you're looking.

[homersapien 11,488]

47 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

No, it's to stave off more pronounced effects. The goal is to keep warming less than 2 degrees Celsius above the baseline. 

It's been pointed out in the past that many of the front people for these issues are prone to sensationalism and using worst-case scenarios, which ends up being a disservice to the attempts to make people aware because it makes them skeptics when those scenarios don't happen. That part is understandable - I completely agree with it. What isn't understandable is that you continue to ignore the actual science of it, even when it's handed to you in this forum (often to rebut the incorrect assertions from the scientists you find that disagree).

 

It almost assuredly won't reduce temperatures, because CO2 levels have already jumped. What it will do is keep temperatures from spiking further and causing even worse conditions.

I see you got your usual jab in at *the scientists*. Just can't help yourself, even when it's talking heads that are misusing the data that well-meaning scientists are producing.

 

Wait and see what? Hardcore denialists will never admit there's a problem. Even if the predictions come true, some of them will find something else to blame it on. The others will blame the government for not doing something sooner.

You are also continuing to ignore the fact that if we "wait and see" it will be too late to prevent catastrophic effects. You leave no room that you may be incorrect, otherwise you wouldn't be saying this.

 

This is such an idiotic blanket statement. It's demonstrably false, so I can't understand why you write it. Climate models have actually proven out to be quite accurate in their predictions, even models from the early 80's (including Exxon's), yet you say nothing has come true? Do you have any desire to have an honest debate about it?

 

And once again, you're misstating. This is not about controlling the weather, it's about cleaning up our mess and allowing nature to follow it's normal cycle.

 

That $50 trillion figure was from a Morgan Stanley report and it referred to worldwide action, not just America. Yes, America would shoulder a large portion of that burden, but don't misstate it. 

You also discount the costs of inaction. How many trillions will be spent fighting the effects of warming? What effects would we not even be able to effectively combat? 

Your statement of fiscal responsibility is predicated upon nothing happening even if we don't do anything.

 

Who is discounting China and India? Their emissions make it even more imperative that we do something. We're in a hole - no reason to make it any harder to climb out.

As the article homer posted points out, we are disproportionately to blame for all this. We led the world in developing many of the industries that led to the lives of relative comfort we lead, and other countries simply began to adopt it. Other countries are also supplying many of the goods we buy that we really don't need, and that adds to the problem. Do you not think we have a responsibility to lead the way out if we can? Do we want someone else cleaning up our mess? 

 

Misstatement.

 

Will be a lot more than "poor people" needing to be saved if nothing is done.

 

If it doesn't happen in your lifetime, then it's not worth it? How selfless of you. I'm sure your progeny appreciate it.

 

Your reliance on this is nauseating. The fallacy of using it has been pointed out many times.

 

I'm sure they would welcome any input. All the efforts I've seen from denialists have been to refute current scientific consensus. I haven't seen anyone put forth an alternate explanation. Please enlighten us when you find it, as I'm sure you're looking.

You are a paragon of patience Leftfield. 

Bless you.

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

If it doesn't happen in your lifetime, then it's not worth it? How selfless of you. I'm sure your progeny appreciate it.

Where did I say anything about my lifetime?  Somewhat disingenuous, don’t you think?’

Clearly I disagree with the dire need to do something about our climate to the point we abandon all reason.

And the point about the wait and see approach

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Your reliance on this is nauseating. The fallacy of using it has been pointed out many times.

The last thing I heard was *the science* was based on bad assumptions, if that is not correct please advise.  Whose to say *the science* of today’s hysteria is not based on bad assumptions?  Isn’t the what scientist are suppose to do; question every thing?

 

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Please enlighten us when you find it, as I'm sure you're looking.

I keep presenting you with some and all you do is b1tch and moan.  Its almost as if you don’t want to see if there are other explanations.

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Wait and see what? Hardcore denialists will never admit there's a problem. Even if the predictions come true, some of them will find something else to blame it on. The others will blame the government for not doing something sooner.

You are also continuing to ignore the fact that if we "wait and see" it will be too late to prevent catastrophic effects. You leave no room that you may be incorrect, otherwise you wouldn't be saying this.

If the goal set by the Paris Accord are met and the result is less global temperatures I’m sure that would go a long way in convincing people.

I’m not ignoring the presumption that we only have a limited time to react, that is the new twist to the world is coming to an end scenario.  You are convinced it is true, I believe if it is true so be it.  Just like Covid was a pandemic that we adapted to, so will climate change be adapted to by humans.

Have you ever wondered why a lot of the developed countries are not producing enough children to sustain their countries population.  That could be a blessing in disguise as the world population could shrink from 10 billion to 2 billion over 300 years.  The problem of course will be the decline will not happen until around 2100, too late for global warming, but maybe with so few people the atmosphere will repair it self quicker.

From Bloomberg:

When the human population begins to fall, it will do so not gradually, but almost as steeply as it once rose. “Humanity will not reach a plateau and then stabilize,” writes Dean Spears in the New York Times. “It will begin an unprecedented decline ... If the world’s fertility rate [after 2100] were the same as in the United States today, then the global population would fall from a peak of around 10 billion to [less than] 2 billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. And if family sizes remained small, we would continue declining.”

The problem is that this precipitous decline will come a century too late to avert the disastrous consequences of climate change that many today fear — and which are another reason why people will flee Africa, and another reason why young people in Europe say they will have few or no children.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-10/global-population-collapse-isn-t-sci-fi-anymore-niall-ferguson

Relax, it will all work out.

[Leftfield 2,684]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Where did I say anything about my lifetime?  Somewhat disingenuous, don’t you think?’

Not in the least. You've mentioned before you have confidence the younger generations will be able to work it all out. Again, so nice that you have no problem leaving our mess for them to clean up.

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Clearly I disagree with the dire need to do something about our climate to the point we abandon all reason.

Doing something you don't agree with is not "abandoning all reason." Nobody has suggested bankrupting the country in an all out effort to tackle CO2 emissions, but yes, there will be some increased burden on consumers as we move that way. As, auburnatl1 pointed out, there is a sane middle ground, and as technologies advance and more people and countries come on board things will get easier. Lead and invest in development and it will be this country that is at the forefront of new technologies that can be sold to others. Don't invest and watch China dominate energy in the future. Which of those looks like abandoning reason to you?

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The last thing I heard was *the science* was based on bad assumptions, if that is not correct please advise.  Whose to say *the science* of today’s hysteria is not based on bad assumptions?  Isn’t the what scientist are suppose to do; question every thing?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/

That gives a good rundown of the whole "global cooling" myth, including examples frequently cited by skeptics here. Basically, what skeptics push as a huge number of scientists going crazy about our impending doom is selective memory. There was plenty of uncertainty because of the impact of aerosols that caused a temporary cooling phase in the middle of the century, but the warnings of warming began well before that, and models evolved very quickly toward the end of the 70's. There was never anywhere close to a consensus that cooling was a problem, and in fact those predictions were well in the minority, but they made for sensationalistic headlines and some in the media ran with it. As the link points out, most of the articles themselves were fairly reasonable, as juxtaposed to their headlines. 

Nobody said you can't question, but the questioners keep coming up with dead ends that don't disprove anything. 

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I keep presenting you with some and all you do is b1tch and moan.  Its almost as if you don’t want to see if there are other explanations.

I bitch and moan because everything you present is either irrelevant or bunk. 

I'd be perfectly willing to look at other explanations, but if you've posted one I haven't seen it. All I've seen you post is attacks on the prevailing theory, not an alternate explanation.

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If the goal set by the Paris Accord are met and the result is less global temperatures I’m sure that would go a long way in convincing people.

By less global temperatures I assume you mean the increase will plateau, because it won't drop. Not for a long time, anyway, because there is already additional CO2 in the atmosphere, and will be for decades, if not longer.

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Just like Covid was a pandemic that we adapted to, so will climate change be adapted to by humans.

Somewhere between two and three million people didn't adapt to Covid, but I guess f*** them, right?

And you're completely naive to think that even if humans adapt to the climate, everything will be ok. Every other species of plant and animal on Earth has to adapt, as well. If they don't, it can severely affect us. 

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Have you ever wondered why a lot of the developed countries are not producing enough children to sustain their countries population.  That could be a blessing in disguise as the world population could shrink from 10 billion to 2 billion over 300 years.  The problem of course will be the decline will not happen until around 2100, too late for global warming, but maybe with so few people the atmosphere will repair it self quicker.

From Bloomberg:

When the human population begins to fall, it will do so not gradually, but almost as steeply as it once rose. “Humanity will not reach a plateau and then stabilize,” writes Dean Spears in the New York Times. “It will begin an unprecedented decline ... If the world’s fertility rate [after 2100] were the same as in the United States today, then the global population would fall from a peak of around 10 billion to [less than] 2 billion about 300 years later, over perhaps 10 generations. And if family sizes remained small, we would continue declining.”

The problem is that this precipitous decline will come a century too late to avert the disastrous consequences of climate change that many today fear — and which are another reason why people will flee Africa, and another reason why young people in Europe say they will have few or no children.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-10/global-population-collapse-isn-t-sci-fi-anymore-niall-ferguson

Relax, it will all work out.

You post this exerpt, which admits the population decline will come too late for the global warming battle....and then say relax. 

I just.....

[Aufan59 82]

16 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The government is pushing an extreme view and is locked in one one cause.  Are they looking at others?

You are having such a hard time finding opposing views that are valid, that you have posted lies just to give an alternate viewpoint.

 

Maybe they have looked for reasonable alternative views, and have found none? 

[Cardin Drake 1,876]

On 4/30/2024 at 7:07 AM, homersapien said:

You are wrong.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/

What Do the Models Show?

Tom Knutson, senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is a leading scientist on hurricanes and climate change.

He notes that “even if hurricanes themselves don’t change [due to climate change], the flooding from storm surge events will be made worse by sea level rise.” In addition, he says models show increases in a hurricane’s rainfall rate by 2100. This means that hurricanes are likely to cause more intense rain when they come ashore.

Scientists have long predicted that climate change would increase extreme rainfall events. In a warmer world, there is simply more moisture in the air in the form of gaseous water vapor. Think of heating up a pot of water on the stove. Once the liquid water becomes hot enough, it boils and creates steam (or hot water vapor). This process is called “evaporation,” or when a liquid changes to a gas.

A similar process happens at Earth’s surface. As surface temperatures rise, more liquid water evaporates from the land and ocean. Evaporation adds moisture to the air. How much water vapor the air can hold is based on its temperature. Warmer air temperatures can hold more water vapor. The increased moisture in the air leads to more intense rainfall, especially during extreme events.

In a hurricane, spiraling winds draw moist air toward the center, fueling the towering thunderstorms that surround it. As the air continues to warm due to climate change, hurricanes can hold more water vapor, producing more intense rainfall rates in a storm.

Moreover, according to Knutson, most models show that climate change brings a slight increase in hurricane wind intensity. This change is likely related to warming ocean temperatures and more moisture in the air, both of which fuel hurricanes. While most models show either no change or a decrease in hurricane frequency in a warmer climate, a greater proportion of the storms that form will reach very intense (Category 4 or 5) levels. In other words, while there may be fewer storms, the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger.

Scientists continue to research these topics along with other important hurricane metrics, including any potential changes in the speed at which hurricanes move across the ocean, how large storms will get, and where hurricanes will go.

What Do Observations Show?

Climate models that help us understand future changes are a key part to the story, but have any changes in hurricane activity already been observed in recent years?

Since the 1980s, the hurricane record has shown a more active period in the North Atlantic Ocean. On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes, and an increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify. Thus far, most of these increases are from natural climate variations. However, one recent study suggests that the latest increase in the proportion of North Atlantic hurricanes undergoing rapid intensification is a bit too large to be explained by natural variability alone. This could be the beginning of detecting the impact of climate change on hurricanes, the paper states. In contrast, the frequency of hurricanes making U.S. landfall (a subset of North Atlantic hurricanes) has not increased since 1900, despite significant global warming and the heating of the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

One current focus of hurricane research is “sampling hurricanes by flying into them for more accurate data,” says Shirley Murillo, deputy director of NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division.

These higher-quality data are important for improving hurricane model forecasts now and in the future. NOAA partners with NASA to collect measurements of various aspects of hurricanes over time. “NASA weather satellites are a powerful tool for observations, as people cannot fly into every storm to gather data,” Murillo says. Satellites help expand the observational record. With a longer, more detailed record, scientists can detect changes in long-term data trends over time.

This partnership is also developing the next generation of satellites to further improve hurricane observations for models. Dr. Marangelly Fuentes, meteorologist and program manager for one of NASA’s Earth research contracts, says researchers “run tests with potential new data to see how they would impact the model’s ability to correctly forecast a hurricane.”

For example, researchers may test to see if more detailed data about the ocean’s surface temperature in front of a storm help to accurately predict its intensity. If they find something useful, they can use this information to inform the design of instruments on future satellites. Then as more data are collected, this will lead to a better understanding of forecasting hurricanes and how they may be impacted by climate change.

------------------------------------

So, hurricanes have increased in frequency and intensity. 

What cannot be claimed - as yet - that this is a result of global warming. Not enough data.

But as a matter of physics, more heat - as illustrated by auburnnatl1's post - equals more energy. This will undoubtedly result in stronger and/or more frequent storms.

That is as certain as is more speed produces more damage when a car strikes a tree (for example.)  This is why the models predict more frequent and/or stronger hurricanes.

A lie repeated 10,000 times in 10,000 places is still a lie. Have NASA take it up with NOAA.  I know the left will keep repeating it no matter what the data shows. It's too central to the idea of catastrophic global warming.  Take it away and what do you have left?  A more fertile world where plants thrive. Hard to make a doomsday scenario out of that.

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

 

A bombshell new peer-reviewed study has provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming.”

Dr. Jan Kubicki led a group of world-renowned Polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the Earth’s global temperatures.

However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.

Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide.

This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I'd be perfectly willing to look at other explanations, but if you've posted one I haven't seen it.

Have you seen this one I posted a few days ago?  The bottom link is the specifics you might be able to decipher.

 

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You've mentioned before you have confidence the younger generations will be able to work it all out. Again, so nice that you have no problem leaving our mess for them to clean up.

Yes, as every generation before has done.  Why don’t you have confidence in them?  Should we blame Otto for inventing the internal combustion engine in 1861?   How about human nature for wanting a more convenient life? 

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Nobody has suggested bankrupting the country in an all out effort to tackle CO2 emissions

Scientists have testified infront of Congress they want to spend $50 trillion to obtain net zero by 2050.  I will remind you that our debt right now is $34 trillion.  Yes, they have suggested just that.  Biden is threatening to declare a Climate Emergency so he can ram down controls much like he did with COVID.

To the 70’s global cooling link; there was and always have been a difference between what scientist believe and what the public is feed.  It is the reason we have gone from *global cooling* to *global warming* and now to *climate change* and all have been portrayed as gloom and doom.  And you wonder why people are skeptical?

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Somewhere between two and three million people didn't adapt to Covid, but I guess f*** them, right?

What a virtue signaling statement by you.  Yes, we know you are concerned for every living creature on earth and I am too practical.  Get over yourself.

We adapted by developing a vaccine and used other mitigating measures to adapt to the pandemic.

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

And you're completely naive to think that even if humans adapt to the climate, everything will be ok. Every other species of plant and animal on Earth has to adapt, as well. If they don't, it can severely affect us. 

Oh yee of little faith.  End it now lefty, all hope is lost.

11 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You post this exerpt, which admits the population decline will come too late for the global warming battle....and then say relax. 

I just.....

As you blame this generation for causing this problem, you can also blame it for not producing enough offspring to sustain the earth’s population.  Or should we have tried to control the population much earlier?

Life is what it is.

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

You are having such a hard time finding opposing views that are valid, that you have posted lies just to give an alternate viewpoint.

 

Maybe they have looked for reasonable alternative views, and have found none? 

Or, more likely, they have settled on this cause and will not look for others.  Such a dilemma.

[Leftfield 2,684]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

A bombshell new peer-reviewed study has provided conclusive scientific evidence proving that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in Earth’s atmosphere cannot cause “global warming.”

Dr. Jan Kubicki led a group of world-renowned Polish scientists to study the impact of increases in CO2 emissions on the Earth’s global temperatures.

However, not only did they find that higher levels of CO2 made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise.

Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide.

This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456

Have you seen this one I posted a few days ago?  The bottom link is the specifics you might be able to decipher.

I saw it, and it doesn't tell the whole story. For one thing, it doesn't address the fact that CO2 increases also affect the emission of radiation to space. Even If the amount of radiation being absorbed is not significantly increasing, it doesn't matter if the amount being emitted is decreasing. That extra energy will still be trapped and lead to increased temperatures.

Second, even though absorption somewhat plateaus at certain concentrations, it isn't saturated:

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

I also question the reason scattering processes were ignored in the link you posted. Seems to me those would be a significant factor, though I have not looked for evidence of that.

 

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, as every generation before has done.

The common logical fallacy....everything has been fine to this point, so it must be that it always will be. 

Are you saying there's no possible problem that we could pass on to the next generation that they can't solve? And that we have no moral obligation to try to help them address it?

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

To the 70’s global cooling link; there was and always have been a difference between what scientist believe and what the public is feed.  It is the reason we have gone from *global cooling* to *global warming* and now to *climate change* and all have been portrayed as gloom and doom.  And you wonder why people are skeptical?

I already told you I agreed with you on the sensationalistic spin that some media and front men use. We agree on this - it's a detriment to the actual desired response. Once again, you're ignoring the important part of it. In fact, you regularly ridicule *the science*.

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What a virtue signaling statement by you.  Yes, we know you are concerned for every living creature on earth and I am too practical.  Get over yourself.

We adapted by developing a vaccine and used other mitigating measures to adapt to the pandemic.

Caring about millions of people dying is "virtue signaling?" Get over myself? What a complete jackass you are. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same if someone in your family died from it, right? 

Yes, we developed a vaccine - after the disease had already spread. What if we could have predicted what was going to happen and developed a vaccine in advance to drastically reduce those deaths? Same attitude toward that? Wouldn't matter - that's just part of life. Well, since it wouldn't affect you, anyway, right?

 

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Life is what it is.

Yep - screw it all. You're comfortable, so everyone else can deal with it however they want and it doesn't matter what happens to them.

You're pathetic.

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

36 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Caring about millions of people dying is "virtue signaling?" Get over myself? What a complete jackass you are. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same if someone in your family died from it, right? 

Yes,, virtue signaling.  You brough up the people that died, I didn’t.  You must have a two way conversation in your head before you post.  The conversation doesn’t include me.  It is unfortunate that humans have to deal with pandemics and other diseases, but the lesson is how do we treat or mitigate these diseases. 

42 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Yep - screw it all. You're comfortable, so everyone else can deal with it however they want and it doesn't matter what happens to them.

You're pathetic.

Yes, I am comfortable.  That has a lot to do with my belief system.  No, everyone else doesn’t have the right to deal with the matter however they want, that is why I and others pushback.

Pathetic is in the eye of the beholder.

[arein0 980]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Caring about millions of people dying is "virtue signaling?" Get over myself? What a complete jackass you are. I'm sure you'd feel the exact same if someone in your family died from it, right? 

It's not. He's already proven it in the past he doesn't fully understand what virtue signaling is. He just knows it's a buzz word and is desperate to use it.

[homersapien 11,488]

5 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

A lie repeated 10,000 times in 10,000 places is still a lie. Have NASA take it up with NOAA.  I know the left will keep repeating it no matter what the data shows. It's too central to the idea of catastrophic global warming.  Take it away and what do you have left?  A more fertile world where plants thrive. Hard to make a doomsday scenario out of that.

First, it's not a "lie".  Secondly, NASA and NOAA are in accord:

NASA:

As Earth's climate changes, it is impacting extreme weather across the planet. Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.

Extreme Weather and Climate Change - NASA Science

 

NASA Science (.gov)

https://science.nasa.gov › climate-change › extreme-weat...

 

NOAA:

(2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979 and that external forcing in climate models produces similar, though much weaker, changes to hurricane environment metrics than those observed, which suggests a possible anthropogenic contribution.

Global Warming and Hurricanes

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (.gov)

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/extreme-weather/

 

What does NASA need to "take up" with NOAA?  They both are saying the same thing.

The study you claim is proving your case doesn't.  Apparently, you don't really understand it's conclusions.  We can go over that again if you wish.

Finally, your "more fertile world" scenario is hopelessly naive and ignorant of plant physiology.

 

Edited May 1 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

9 minutes ago, arein0 said:

It's not. He's already proven it in the past he doesn't fully understand what virtue signaling is. He just knows it's a buzz word and is desperate to use it.

What would you call inserting that I didn’t care about people dieing into a conversation which I didn’t say and then pointing out I don’t care about the people that died from COVID?

[arein0 980]

12 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

What would you call inserting that I didn’t care about people dieing into a conversation which I didn’t say and then pointing out I don’t care about the people that died from COVID?

False assumption?

[homersapien 11,488]

Man, I really thought our society had gotten past the blatant denier stage. 

This is really not a good look for Auburn.   Embarrassing

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

42 minutes ago, arein0 said:

False assumption?

Based on making him feel better about himself at my expense…..virtue signaling.

[Leftfield 2,684]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Based on making him feel better about himself at my expense…..virtue signaling.

Calling a spade a spade. You continually dismiss the casualties from Covid, as you did in this debate. You also have no problem letting the next generation dealing with the full brunt of the current problem instead of making substantive efforts to help.

And it doesn't make me "feel better" when a human being shows blatant disregard for human life. 

Don't pretend like you're a person who really cares about others in the world, when it's pretty obvious you don't, and then whine about virtue signaling.

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

32 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Calling a spade a spade. You continually dismiss the casualties from Covid, as you did in this debate. You also have no problem letting the next generation dealing with the full brunt of the current problem instead of making substantive efforts to help.

And it doesn't make me "feel better" when a human being shows blatant disregard for human life. 

Don't pretend like you're a person who really cares about others in the world, when it's pretty obvious you don't, and then whine about virtue signaling.

To quote you; You’re pathetic.

[Cardin Drake 1,876]

Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.

There is no data that supports this.

This statement from NOAA in no way shape or form says the same thing. Notice how carefully it is worded. An increasing trend in intensification rates is not the same as an increase in intensity. And it's limited to the East coast.  But they do know how the press will report it. 

2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979.

And this statement here from NOAA actually acknowledges the truth: in summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,

Reading comprehension should be better from an Auburn grad. As usual, when confronted with the truth, blatant denialism takes over.  Since this conversation is no longer civil, I'm out. You can have the last word, Homer.

 

Edited May 1 by Cardin Drake

[Leftfield 2,684]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

To quote you; You’re pathetic.

Eh...maybe, but at least people know I'll actually care if they drop dead in front of me.

Snappy comeback by the way. The ol' Cracker Barrel's really firing on all cylinders I see. Take some extra Ginseng this afternoon?

Edited May 1 by Leftfield

[homersapien 11,488]

21 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Record-breaking heat waves on land and in the ocean, drenching rains, severe floods, years-long droughts, extreme wildfires, and widespread flooding during hurricanes are all becoming more frequent and more intense.

There is no data that supports this.

This statement from NOAA in no way shape or form says the same thing. Notice how carefully it is worded. An increasing trend in intensification rates is not the same as an increase in intensity. And it's limited to the East coast.  But they do know how the press will report it. 

2022) report an increasing trend in hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. East Coast since 1979.

And this statement here from NOAA actually acknowledges the truth: in summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,

Reading comprehension should be better from an Auburn grad. As usual, when confronted with the truth, blatant denialism takes over.  Since this conversation is no longer civil, I'm out. You can have the last word, Homer.

 

I agreed with this statement earlier and still do:

in summary, it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,

If you want to base your general denialism on that sort of confidence level regarding hurricanes, that's up to you.

Personally, considering all of the evidence associated with every other significant parameters/consequences of AGW, I am willing to accept the fact - albeit at a lower confidence level - (which is what they are actually saying) that hurricane intensity is going up. 

This is due to the simple physics of the equation.  More energy (heat) = stronger storms.

And btw, you claim there is no data to support the statement "are all becoming more frequent and more intense".  That's false.  There most certainly is  data, just not enough as yet to achieve "high confidence" (thus, "premature"). 

This is apparently what is tripping you up. Insufficient data to claim "high confidence" does not mean the statement is a "lie". They have data, which is why they make the statements they do.

So, while it may be premature to attach a "high confidence" level of certainty now, I fully expect the statistics will accumulate to do so within say, the next 10 years?  It takes a lot of time to measure effects on things which are relatively infrequent and are influenced by so many variables.)

Of course, you are free to call it a "lie" even after those statistics are available.  Apparently, the "truth" is a little more complicated than you - as a denier - care to acknowledge.

We'll see.

(Want to bet on it?)

Edited May 2 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

I hesitate to bring this here, but….

 

Fire away.

[Aufan59 82]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I hesitate to bring this here, but….

 

Fire away.

This is the same garbage you posted before.  Confounds enthalpy with radiative forcing.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,033]

14 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

This is the same garbage you posted before.  Confounds enthalpy with radiative forcing.

 

Different studies:

How to cite this paper: Nelson, M. and Nelson, D.B. (2024) Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change. International Journal of Geosciences, 15, 246-269. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2024.153015
Received: January 14, 2024 Accepted: March 23, 2024 Published: March 26, 2024

and

Received: March 02, 2024Accepted: April 03, 2024Published: April 15, 2024Citation: Lightfoot HD,Ratzer G.Reliable physics demand revision of the IPCC global warming potentials

So it seems at least two different studies have misunderstood the relationship between enthapy and radiative forcing.

Maybe you can straighten them out.  or maybe there is something to what they are saying.

[Aufan59 82]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Different studies:

How to cite this paper: Nelson, M. and Nelson, D.B. (2024) Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change. International Journal of Geosciences, 15, 246-269. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2024.153015
Received: January 14, 2024 Accepted: March 23, 2024 Published: March 26, 2024

and

Received: March 02, 2024Accepted: April 03, 2024Published: April 15, 2024Citation: Lightfoot HD,Ratzer G.Reliable physics demand revision of the IPCC global warming potentials

So it seems at least two different studies have misunderstood the relationship between enthapy and radiative forcing.

Maybe you can straighten them out.  or maybe there is something to what they are saying.

Same garbage though.  The mechanism of global warming is not CO2 getting hotter (enthalpy) which makes the atmosphere hotter.