RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action

RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/15/2017 10:33:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Not to mention... In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2 You got something a little newer? That was almost twenty years ago and science has made some advances since then. Well I'm sure you must know what you're talking about, so I look forward to learning what advances have made possible the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems. Can I count on you to get back to me on that? So I guess that means that you have nothing newer on the subject. That's what I thought. I wouldn't be so quick to call that thinking. Have there been advances which would allow the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems? Obviously, you don't have a clue. That's why, when challenged, all you have to offer is your clownishly smug response. K.

Milesnmiles -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 4:32:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Not to mention... In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2 You got something a little newer? That was almost twenty years ago and science has made some advances since then. Well I'm sure you must know what you're talking about, so I look forward to learning what advances have made possible the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems. Can I count on you to get back to me on that? So I guess that means that you have nothing newer on the subject. That's what I thought. I wouldn't be so quick to call that thinking. Have there been advances which would allow the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems? Obviously, you don't have a clue. That's why, when challenged, all you have to offer is your clownishly smug response. K. No thinking really needed, just observation of the fact that I asked you if you can come up something newer than twenty years ago and the fact that you are still trying to dodge the question. See the problem is a simple internet search will come up with many and varied scientific advances in the areas you speak of, the really hard part is coming up with something that seems to disagree with all that science has come up with in last 2 decades. So please answer my original question and stop trying to dodge it.

InfoMan -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 5:06:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling As for aerosols it depends on what you're talking about; chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the ozone layer and thus had a warming effect but aerosols from massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid hitting the Earth, apart from the catastrophic effects of such, would cool the Earth. http://www.pnas.org/content/95/22/12753.abstract https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/10114550 It was actually a huge discussion at NASA for a while - the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project... they thought that greenhouse gasses made more clouds, and these clouds would effect aviation and space launches. Great, in the 1990s where your articles come from, NASA discussed Atmospheric Aerosols and their possible effects. But that was twenty years ago, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what NASA is discussing now in regards to Global warming. Global temperature up 1.7 degrees since 1880 Arctic ice minimum down 13.3 percent per decade Land ice down 281 Gigatonnes per year Sea level up 3.4 millimeters per year Carbon Dioxide up 405.92 parts per million And imagine what people will say 10-20 years from now about the scientists and their stupid theories they hold today... That is the point... it isn't like there is a solid consensus which has been held for a prolonged period of time about global warming. The only thing which has remained constant is the idea that 'It is Our fault'...

InfoMan -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 5:19:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Like gravity? Or free markets? [;)] less then 70% of scientists can entirely agree on gravity... Sure 99.9% of the scientific community agree that Gravity is a Thing, but some people say it's caused by Anti-matter some say that it is warping it space time... there is no real definitive answer or consensus as to what gravity is or what is causing it. It is the same thing in just about every other major theory discussion. Yeah we can agree on the results... but how we get to those results we do not all agree on. which is why you don't really see +80% of the scientific community entirely agreeing on any one subject. Yes can agree that evolution is a thing... but what did we evolve from? what induces it? If you believe in Darwinism... how do Chimps and Apes still exist? So when people say +90% of the scientific community agree that Climate Change is not only a thing, but also it is induced by our actions as humans... that should set off so many red flags for people.

Kirata -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 6:28:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Not to mention... In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ~IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2 You got something a little newer? That was almost twenty years ago and science has made some advances since then. Well I'm sure you must know what you're talking about, so I look forward to learning what advances have made possible the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems. Can I count on you to get back to me on that? So I guess that means that you have nothing newer on the subject. That's what I thought. I wouldn't be so quick to call that thinking. Have there been advances which would allow the long term prediction of future states of coupled non-linear chaotic systems? Obviously, you don't have a clue. That's why, when challenged, all you have to offer is your clownishly smug response. No thinking really needed, just observation of the fact that I asked you if you can come up something newer than twenty years ago and the fact that you are still trying to dodge the question. Yeah, no thinking needed. That seems to sum you up. You questioned the validity of the quote I posted on no other basis than it being from 2001. So what? Einstein published his theory of General Relativity more than a hundred years ago! And here's more news you can use: Long term prediction of future states of non-linear chaotic systems is still impossible, and will continue to be impossible for a very long time. You are simply grossly ignorant of the nature of the problem. Vanishingly small perturbations can drive non-linear chaotic systems to wildly divergent outcomes. Their future states cannot be predicted, virtually by definition, because it is impossible to model every infinitesimal detail of their initial conditions with sufficient resolution. Not even using our most powerful computers, because the problem is analog. K.

BoscoX -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 7:03:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Like gravity? Or free markets? [;)] less then 70% of scientists can entirely agree on gravity... Sure 99.9% of the scientific community agree that Gravity is a Thing, but some people say it's caused by Anti-matter some say that it is warping it space time... there is no real definitive answer or consensus as to what gravity is or what is causing it. It is the same thing in just about every other major theory discussion. Yeah we can agree on the results... but how we get to those results we do not all agree on. which is why you don't really see +80% of the scientific community entirely agreeing on any one subject. Yes can agree that evolution is a thing... but what did we evolve from? what induces it? If you believe in Darwinism... how do Chimps and Apes still exist? So when people say +90% of the scientific community agree that Climate Change is not only a thing, but also it is induced by our actions as humans... that should set off so many red flags for people. For the longest time, "science" taught students that "gravity" is what holds water in a bucket when it is swung around on a rope If they have no clue they bullshit people, they are only human after all

MrRodgers -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 8:19:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Aerosols had chemicals that depleted the ozone which is a layer of the atmosphere that deflects and/or absorbes UV rays. Aerosols were not believed to have any serious effect on the AGW debate. There is only one aerosol soot, also known as black carbon that actually helps contribute to global warming by boosting the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Aerosols and Clouds (Indirect Effects) Whereas aerosols can influence climate by scattering light and changing Earth's reflectivity, they can also alter the climate via clouds. On a global scale, these aerosol “indirect effects” typically work in opposition to greenhouse gases and cause cooling.

mnottertail -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 8:24:27 AM)
what then does hold water in the bucket swung around at the end of a rope, Professor Plum? I dont ever remember that it was said to be gravity, other than in a change of normal force (gravity etc) to centripetal force (changing the path of inertia moment to moment, at least that is what was taught 60 years ago). You certainly have some nutsucker slobber blog that gives us the credible citation of gravity being the culprit in this little vignette by what obviously must be the nutsucker scientists? (Newton's laws, not going to educate the uneducable).

InfoMan -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 8:28:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Aerosols had chemicals that depleted the ozone which is a layer of the atmosphere that deflects and/or absorbes UV rays. Aerosols were not believed to have any serious effect on the AGW debate. There is only one aerosol soot, also known as black carbon that actually helps contribute to global warming by boosting the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Aerosols and Clouds (Indirect Effects) Whereas aerosols can influence climate by scattering light and changing Earth's reflectivity, they can also alter the climate via clouds. On a global scale, these aerosol “indirect effects” typically work in opposition to greenhouse gases and cause cooling. 20 Years ago - NASA disagreed https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html Human-Made Aerosol The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Sulfate aerosols are believed to survive in the atmosphere for about 3-5 days. The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds. Who's to say what is going to be fact 20 years from now?

MrRodgers -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 9:30:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Aerosols had chemicals that depleted the ozone which is a layer of the atmosphere that deflects and/or absorbes UV rays. Aerosols were not believed to have any serious effect on the AGW debate. There is only one aerosol soot, also known as black carbon that actually helps contribute to global warming by boosting the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Aerosols and Clouds (Indirect Effects) Whereas aerosols can influence climate by scattering light and changing Earth's reflectivity, they can also alter the climate via clouds. On a global scale, these aerosol “indirect effects” typically work in opposition to greenhouse gases and cause cooling. 20 Years ago - NASA disagreed https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html Human-Made Aerosol The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. The concentration of human-made sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere has grown rapidly since the start of the industrial revolution. At current production levels, human-made sulfate aerosols are thought to outweigh the naturally produced sulfate aerosols. The concentration of aerosols is highest in the northern hemisphere where industrial activity is centered. The sulfate aerosols absorb no sunlight but they reflect it, thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Sulfate aerosols are believed to survive in the atmosphere for about 3-5 days. The sulfate aerosols also enter clouds where they cause the number of cloud droplets to increase but make the droplet sizes smaller. The net effect is to make the clouds reflect more sunlight than they would without the presence of the sulfate aerosols. Pollution from the stacks of ships at sea has been seen to modify the low-lying clouds above them. These changes in the cloud droplets, due to the sulfate aerosols from the ships, have been seen in pictures from weather satellites as a track through a layer of clouds. In addition to making the clouds more reflective, it is also believed that the additional aerosols cause polluted clouds to last longer and reflect more sunlight than non-polluted clouds. Who's to say what is going to be fact 20 years from now? If you will notice from your link: The third type of aerosol comes from human activities. While a large fraction of human-made aerosols come in the form of smoke from burning tropical forests, the major component comes in the form of sulfate aerosols created by the burning of coal and oil. I think these classify as soot. A sulfate aerosol is an aerosol that has suspended the particles of the soot. We study the optical properties of anthropogenic sulfate aerosols containing black carbon using a recently developed exact solution of the scattering problem for a spherical particle (sulfate aerosol) containing an eccentrically located spherical inclusion (black carbon).

Milesnmiles -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 9:35:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan Wasn't there a just as huge consensus on 'Global Cooling' back in the 90's when people genuinely believed that Aerosols reflected light and absorbed infrared? I just keep thinking... these are the same people that convinced us that we should prepare for an Ice Age back in the 70 and 80s. Any time 90% of a community agree's on Anything we should be seriously skeptical of it... Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, which showed a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions.[1] The current scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but underwent global warming throughout the 20th century.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling As for aerosols it depends on what you're talking about; chlorofluorocarbons were depleting the ozone layer and thus had a warming effect but aerosols from massive volcanic eruption or an asteroid hitting the Earth, apart from the catastrophic effects of such, would cool the Earth. http://www.pnas.org/content/95/22/12753.abstract https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Aerosols.html https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/10114550 It was actually a huge discussion at NASA for a while - the Atmospheric Effects of Aviation Project... they thought that greenhouse gasses made more clouds, and these clouds would effect aviation and space launches. Great, in the 1990s where your articles come from, NASA discussed Atmospheric Aerosols and their possible effects. But that was twenty years ago, perhaps you would be so kind as to tell us what NASA is discussing now in regards to Global warming. Global temperature up 1.7 degrees since 1880 Arctic ice minimum down 13.3 percent per decade Land ice down 281 Gigatonnes per year Sea level up 3.4 millimeters per year Carbon Dioxide up 405.92 parts per million And imagine what people will say 10-20 years from now about the scientists and their stupid theories they hold today... That is the point... it isn't like there is a solid consensus which has been held for a prolonged period of time about global warming. The only thing which has remained constant is the idea that 'It is Our fault'... What will people say; probably what idiots we were for not paying attention to what practically every scientist was saying and pulling our heads out of our asses and doing something about Global Warming while we still could, although it may be already too late because of idiot Global Warming and science deniers that have possibly delayed remedial measures till past the tipping point. You are pointing back to a time, twenty years ago at a "hypothesis that had little support in the scientific community", as I pointed out earlier. Whereas the Global Warming hypothesis has had substantial support in the scientific community for almost twenty years.

tamaka -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 10:10:25 AM)
How do we know that the earth's temperature hasn't increased because of all black asphalt we've covered it with?

BoscoX -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 10:45:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery The Atlantic has a piece today outlining the concern a group of House Republicans have in the Trump era: "There really is consensus in the scientific community" "It's important we take climate change very, very seriously, because the threats that are posed by that are very serious." Further, Trump may not care about climate change, but the military does (story going round, from ProPolitica to Mother Jones): Secretary of Defense James Mattis has asserted that climate change is real and a threat to American interests abroad and the Pentagon's assets everywhere, a position that appears at odds with the views of the president who appointed him and many in the administration in which he serves. In unpublished written testimony provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee after his confirmation hearing in January, Mattis said it was incumbent on the US military to consider how changes like open-water routes in the thawing Arctic and drought in global trouble spots can pose challenges for troops and defense planners. He also stressed this is a real-time issue, not some distant what-if. "Climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today," Mattis said in written answers to questions posed after the public hearing by Democratic members of the committee. "It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning." Where does this leave the GOP, and where does this leave America, in a leadership with an official (!) policy of science denial? Thanks for the link proving once again that the alt left doesn't think, they just march along in their rigid ideologue lock-step. "All heil settled science! Debate is strictly verboten!" Conservatives, not so much

mnottertail -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 10:53:33 AM)
there are no conservatives, however nutsuckers have strawmanned the debate is forbidden as they felchgobble, but we the American citizens dont want actions taken on your retarded felchgobble.

InfoMan -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 11:17:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles What will people say; probably what idiots we were for not paying attention to what practically every scientist was saying and pulling our heads out of our asses and doing something about Global Warming while we still could, although it may be already too late because of idiot Global Warming and science deniers that have possibly delayed remedial measures till past the tipping point. You are pointing back to a time, twenty years ago at a "hypothesis that had little support in the scientific community", as I pointed out earlier. Whereas the Global Warming hypothesis has had substantial support in the scientific community for almost twenty years. Do something about global warming? This may be a surprised to you, but the idea that Global Warming was ever fixable is not a scientific statement - it is a political one... Global Warming is a naturally occurring event. And while scientists sit and argue on the breadth and depth of the influence we have over the atmosphere by pumping out large amounts of CO2 emissions (spoilers, no real connection between CO2 levels and temperature variances has ever been found). We could no more stop 'Global Warming' then we could stop an earthquake or tidal wave. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels since the End of World War 2, there is nothing to imply that the current trend of Global Warming would stop. I don't deny global warming... but to say that a naturally occurring event is our fault... ... that it is our duty to stop said naturally occurring event. i believe that is hubris which will be disproved in 20 years.

tamaka -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 11:44:49 AM)
Wow... i just did a google search for the heck of it and found out i could very well be right! How come no one is talking about this possibility? http://mb-soft.com/public3/asphalt.html

Musicmystery -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 1:35:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery True. Other than a gratuitous nod to reactionaries, I don't see what the administration or Congress gains by pretending the problem isn't there. Evasion and denial have worked a lot better for the GOP than trying to address issues since the '70s. Why should they change their approach now? Because evasion and denial have consequences.

tamaka -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 1:48:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery True. Other than a gratuitous nod to reactionaries, I don't see what the administration or Congress gains by pretending the problem isn't there. Evasion and denial have worked a lot better for the GOP than trying to address issues since the '70s. Why should they change their approach now? Because evasion and denial have consequences. You should read up on what Kirata was talking about.

MrRodgers -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 3:46:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfoMan ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles Global Warming is a naturally occurring event. And while scientists sit and argue on the breadth and depth of the influence we have over the atmosphere by pumping out large amounts of CO2 emissions (spoilers, no real connection between CO2 levels and temperature variances has ever been found). We will be lucky if in 20 years we wait for such a disproof while doing no more and we in the southwest aren't scurrying even more for all of the shade we can find. The link between C02 levels and increased atmospheric and surface temp. has been scientifically proven beyond all a doubt. HERE The heat trapped is not just in the radiant heat but in the change of light waves and has been proven conclusively that, that change in the lightwave causes the atmosphere to trap more heat. This effect has always been there, it is not new at all. When the concentration of so-called greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, Methane, NOx, etc.) is increased, the percentage of infrared radiation which is beeing transmitted through the atmosphere is reduced or in other words: When the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increased, more infrared radiation is reflected back to the Earth by the atmosphere. This leads to an increased temperature of the surface of the Earth. This increased effect due to higher concentration of greenhouse gases is normally called global warming or climate change. HERE So man is doing what ? He is mowing down rain forests...a carbon sink. He is increasing the temp of and thus the acidity of the ocean reducing it as a carbon sink. (80% of C02 was absorbed by the ocean...no more) Man is spewing millions of tons of C02 himself into the atmosphere. So what is mankind doing ? Totally fucking up what was the natural carbon cycle. Since 1990 - 2015 25 years. I say 25 years is a trend. Phoenix, Ariz. Over 230 new record high temps. Over 180 new record high low temps NO new record lows...none. That last number (180 new record high low temps.) has scientists believing that say by 2030 or 2040 between April and Oct 1 of any year in Phx, Ariz., the temp. will be over 90 deg. F...24 hours a day. Yes, for 6 mos. the temp. will not [ever] go below 90 deg. F. While it was snowing what 7-8 feet in NE in 2015, S. Calif had 6 new all time record highs. What man can do, is to stop fucking with the earth's natural carbon cycle.

Milesnmiles -> RE: 17 House Republicans call for climate change action (3/16/2017 6:14:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka How do we know that the earth's temperature hasn't increased because of all black asphalt we've covered it with? Could a be Johnny Could a be! ;-)

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625