quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

Google is your friend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

Science such as climate change isn't political, it's science. The fact that libs support action to mitigate its effects just shows where their values are, not that they're trying to take advantage of people through misinformation. Believe what you want, but the fact of the matter remains that this is how the world works. If you can't handle it, then go back to your bible and you'll get all the comfort you need from that

No it's not political, so why do you keep bringing up cons when you talk about it? and now you are going to bring religion in as well? Perhaps you could try discussing facts and quit trying to show everyone how superior you are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly. But considering we haven't seen an influx of aerosols into the atmosphere thanks to catastrophic meteorite impacts and/or super volcano eruptions which can influence climate, it's a pretty safe bet that it is NOT aerosols. Not to mention putting aerosols into the atmosphere has been considered as a SOLUTION to climate change to deflect insolation and cool the atmosphere. Big difference between a GHG which reradiate infrared radiation reflected back from the earth's surface and aerosols which block incoming solar radiation, you should look it up.

Unlike Phydeax, you're not even a challenge. Atleast he understood a semblance of the science, you don't even know the difference between a greenhouse gas (GHG) and an aerosol. Take your own advice and go read a book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly. But considering we haven't seen an influx of aerosols into the atmosphere thanks to catastrophic meteorite impacts and/or super volcano eruptions which can influence climate, it's a pretty safe bet that it is NOT aerosols. Not to mention putting aerosols into the atmosphere has been considered as a SOLUTION to climate change to deflect insolation (insulation) and cool the atmosphere. Big difference between a GHG which reradiate (re radiate) infrared radiation reflected back from the earth's surface and aerosols which block incoming solar radiation, you should look it up.

Unlike Phydeax, you're not even a challenge. Atleast he understood a semblance of the science, you don't even know the difference between a greenhouse gas (GHG) and an aerosol. Take your own advice and go read a book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

It's not an overnight fix, it will obviously take gradual changes to the market and changes to government policies to begin a shift towards better things, but that does not mean it should be the sole focus of this world. There are other problems out there too, but theres no reason why action on climate change can't occur while action on other issues happens at the same time.

quote:


You've chosen 2 items. Gravity being one of them (it being a relative constant throughout the greater part of Earth's history, we're going to respectfully, remove that from our equations).

"There's been a few events (I know...it's crazy) in our (entire Earth) history that don't involve Jay Leno, cheez whiz, rubber, even ball point pens, that it's actually somewhat astounding. (The numbers of these striking and cataclysmic events actually rise in excess of millions....at least 2....as in more than 1 (added for clarity...I meant...1...not 1 million), less than 3 - upwards of {honestly} 100's that have exceeded in seconds....literally seconds....an explosion of gasses that within days {read: essentially, for practical purposes, "instantaneously"}"

Stop believing what you've been taught.

Start believing what you can discern (even if it disagrees).

You are spouting what you've been taught.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly. But considering we haven't seen an influx of aerosols into the atmosphere thanks to catastrophic meteorite impacts and/or super volcano eruptions which can influence climate, it's a pretty safe bet that it is NOT aerosols. Not to mention putting aerosols into the atmosphere has been considered as a SOLUTION to climate change to deflect insolation (insulation) and cool the atmosphere. Big difference between a GHG which reradiate (re radiate) infrared radiation reflected back from the earth's surface and aerosols which block incoming solar radiation, you should look it up.

Unlike Phydeax, you're not even a challenge. Atleast he understood a semblance of the science, you don't even know the difference between a greenhouse gas (GHG) and an aerosol. Take your own advice and go read a book.

Yes, I know...I'm a dunce....but so far I've been able to wash my clothes and show up on time for most of my meetings with all my hookers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

It's not an overnight fix, it will obviously take gradual changes to the market and changes to government policies to begin a shift towards better things, but that does not mean it should be the sole focus of this world. There are other problems out there too, but theres no reason why action on climate change can't occur while action on other issues happens at the same time.

Absolutely no argument.

So long as the result we're all looking for has actual basis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


A new Gallup poll has found some interesting data on how much different groups personally worry about global warming. Worrying about global warming seems to be predominantly a Democrat pastime. Of the Democrats surveyed, 82% said they personally worried about global warming either a great deal or at least a "fair amount". For Independents it was 49%, and 37% among Republicans.

There was also an age factor at work. Among 18-29 year olds, 70% personally worry about global warming a fair amount of the time or more. But this falls off with each higher age cohort. Is that because older people are less inclined to get excited over every new disaster du jour, or because the young have more reason to fear the consequence if the predictions prove valid?

My guess is, the answer is a little bit of both on the second question. But why worrying over global warming is so predominantly a Democrat pastime seems open to speculation. Arguing "stupid Republicans" doesn't explain why worry over global warming isn't eating up many Independents either. Anyone have any views on that?

K.

I worry about global warming in the same sense that I worry about the fact that someday I will be dead. It's not something I dwell upon or allow to become a barrier to living my life, but it's something worth being informed upon.

Perhaps age might be a factor. If the consequences for something won't really affect someone in their own lifetime, they might not be as inclined to worry about it as things that have more direct and immediate effect on their lives. People look at their own immediate surroundings, and as long as what they see is peaceful, serene, and comfortable, then that's what the whole world will look like. Even for those whose surroundings are not so peaceful or comfortable, global warming may not be something of immediate concern, as there might be more pressing matters the people might focus on.

Fact is, if society really was worried about global warming to the point of demanding that we take serious measures to reduce carbon emissions and take whatever actions are humanly possible to reduce global warming, then that would mean everyone in society would have to make some hard decisions about their lifestyles, consumption habits, and other changes to their quality and way of life. If push came to shove, I don't think people of any age would really want to do that. People will still consume, use energy, use resources, and emit carbon into the atmosphere.

I'm also not sure exactly what the long-term consequences will be, no matter if we stop all carbon emissions tomorrow or if we keep on going as we are. If we're talking about depletion of arable farmland and other vital resources, then the ensuing global conflict would be a more immediate consequence than the actual results of global warming itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Back to the original question. I do not worry about it. Not for a second.

And that's totally fine, but it becomes an issue when people deny it's happening and stand in the way of action to mitigate it's impacts on human life and on the economy in the years and decades to come.

Look, there are a variety of very intelligent people (on both sides of the debate....some funded by global warming wanna bee's, others funded by oil, nuclear, et al) who all have a very specific opinion (and one they would most dearly love you to share with them...because it benefits them....not you).

Think "sit ins", celebrities, people you respected, admire.....what did that make you want to do?

REACT!!!!!

THAT'S what they WANTED you to do!!!!!

That is what 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population (that would be you by way of %) is doing as we speak....instead of educating themselves....they're (you're) feeding themselves with pablum, just as you're fed....not unfortunately, with history (as you can discern yourself....all by yourself...with no influence from ANY outside source).

(BEFORE you PATENTLY respond without reading the entire post......read the ENTIRE post).

Did you know (this is actually verifiable fact, now 50 years later...the oil companies admit it) that nearly all the nuclear 'sit ins" to dissuade the general public's opinions on nuclear energy...were funded by the oil companies?

I wonder why that would be?

(Here's a thought: They wanted you NOT to use nuclear energy...and to use more oil).

Did you know that sun spots actually cycle (you know how to use Google...anyone that "demands" links will be shot...you're all intelligent enough to do your own homework) and that we're in a particular cycle that portends a cooling cycle within 3 - 5 years?

Did you know that all of the chemicals we're now fearful of have been 50 - 75% higher in history (with cooler global temps) than they are today (than in the past)...and the oceans didn't rise?

Ooooops.

Now....with all that said (and all you crazies foaming at the mouth...take a chill pill....continue reading)....we can do better.

This is ACTUALLY the FIRST time these events (specifically known chemicals in the atmosphere) have been THIS high and MOST ASSUREDLY CAUSED by man wherein which not only did WE cause them but WE can actually lower them...and we should.

We are the FIRST generation of humans who can actually change this by our actions....and we should.

But....global warming is NOT being caused by man (nor is global cooling). It's being caused by our solar system.

But.....we aren't helping.

(And neither, quite frankly, are the alarmists).

Let's insulate and stop blaming.

Let's drive less and quit insinuating.

Let's add solar panels and dry our clothes outside.

And let's (all) READ!!!!!!!!

(A place I would recommend starting would be.....HISTORY).

I don't believe that Kansas is going to be ocean front property any more than I believe that New York will be frozen soon and our new national capitol will be moved surreptitiously to Guadalajara.

What I do believe is; we can do better.

And we're the first generation of all human kind that can.

Blaming fallacious bullshit instead of facts is the first step to finding a bad solution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

More facts from the climate front.

All according to EPA Figures:
China, singlehandedly is responsibly for 28% of global emissions.
The US, by contrast, is responsible for 14%.

China singlehandedly is responsible for more emissions than the entire western hemisphere.
If American emissions were reduced to zero, Ie, IF america completely ceased to exist - it buys us 6 years.

US emissions continue to decline (more than any other nation*). China's emissions continue to grow.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates onshore wind power will be 80% more expensive than conventional natural gas power, offshore wind power will be 142% more expensive than natural gas, solar thermal power will be 208% more expensive than natural gas, and solar photovoltaic will be 377% more expensive than natural gas.

And ther Gabriel Calzada study found that each job in renewable energy cost the country 22 jobs.

It is an IDIOTIC fantasy that carbon emissions can be solved in the United States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

No it's not political, so why do you keep bringing up cons when you talk about it? and now you are going to bring religion in as well? Perhaps you could try discussing facts and quit trying to show everyone how superior you are.

Interesting post over at Climate Nuremburg:

Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event—preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it—live on cable news. Tomorrow.

The hardest thing about communicating the deadliness of the climate problem is that it isn’t killing anyone. And just between us, let’s be honest: the average member of the public is a bit (how can I put it politely?) of a moron. It’s all well and good for the science to tell us global warming is a bigger threat than Fascism was, but Joe Q. Flyover doesn’t understand science. He wants evidence.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I have read, extensively, and I assume you're talking about an influx of atmospheric aerosols which change temperature very rapidly. I agree, they do cause very quick changes, but usually a cooling, not a warming. Do you know how long Aerosols stay in the atmosphere? Not long. They're particulates, solid particulates, and gravity combined with rain and other factors bring it back to the earth fairly quickly.