Global warming my ass

[Dwinsgames]

here we are about to hit July and I can't count the sub 80 degree days we have had here locally this month alone .... normally its 80-90 every day this year we have had 60s in June for a high with mostly 70s and a handful of 80s .... but hey the Government says if we pay them more taxes they can keep it cooler ..... any cooler and my furnace might kick on at night in the summer months !!

60s for a high means 50s for a low ..... make it cooler and on comes furnace at 4am


oh snap forget I said anything they changed their mind its not global warming anymore its climate change because they do not have the data to support Global warming as every cooler than normal day we have eats up a portion of their credibility

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftimbernard.org%2Fgw-time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=d79a676ae3fc6af9d78c39ba9491761614a070adfa9d63 26f198e8f7c7333d00&ipo=images

http://geology.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/ice_ages2.gif

[Orion]

they have rebranded from global warming to just climate change. you know because the earth's climate has been the same for millions of years. but dont worry, NY just banned wood fire pizza's so we're saved !!! ...i mean they could have banned private jets and yachts, but the pizza thing will help just as much right ?

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/329823968_3283977561867491_1196226366018048721_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=Z3c4LRX6jLMAX8-ynEN&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfAyLvpXH0FZRnGugkmX1w6llIo-L_qCS7lYpkJ6WEfHKw&oe=64A471F9

[Orion]

https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED473/649cc1dbf2095.jpeghttps://i.imgflip.com/4wzpef.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED966/64914ad8e2a29.jpeg

- - - Updated - - -

https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED251/64635149524b8.webp

- - - Updated - - -

https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED814/640d3a8dd6950.webp

- - - Updated - - -

https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED390/63d0c94e91167.webp

[steelreserve]

they have rebranded from global warming to just climate change. you know because the earth's climate has been the same for millions of years. but dont worry, NY just banned wood fire pizza's so we're saved !!! ...i mean they could have banned private jets and yachts, but the pizza thing will help just as much right ?

No, no, it's not climate change, you're so 2006. It is a climate CRISIS. Or better yet, a climate EMERGENCY.

I mean, never mind that there is a finite amount of greenhouse gas that it is possible to release, and that the maximum effect of that falls far short of a catastrophe. We are going to be like Venus because some liberal shitheads who only read the headlines and have no concept of scale whatsoever said it's a crisis. In fact, that's where just about every bad idea comes from these days.

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/337893057_208409611798559_769319524280255207_n.jpg ?stp=cp6_dst-jpg_p843x403&_nc_cat=100&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=FhxujtckuhIAX_uYshp&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfDJSVZKqDFXHVdq1Pz2I7Jqru9M_vEyXe1s_fp1hDZa Vw&oe=64A4BC0F

[DuckHodges]

i see a lot of people bought into the koch brothers' kool-aid lol

[ALLD]

It was 92* at Universal Studios in Orlando yesterday. The Cat in the Hat and Grinch were sweating their nuts off in costume.

[Mach1]

https://i.imgflip.com/73v4lr.jpg

[willy]

A little global warming for you:


July 3, 2023


NBC 5 Meteorologist Samantha Davies explains why July 3, 2023 was the Earth's hottest day ever according to NOAA. The hottest day ever on Earth happened on July 3, 2023. The average global temperature reached 62.62 degrees Fahrenheit.

https://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/weather-connection/earths-hottest-day-ever-was-recorded-on-july-3-2023/3289861/#:~:text=NBC%205%20Meteorologist%20Samantha%20Davi es,temperature%20reached%2062.62%20degrees%20Fahre nheit.

[Mach1]

https://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/nbc-news-736x486.jpg

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/306354957_5749891515042355_624353487263819176_n.jp g?_nc_cat=100&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=CmUTP993mcQAX9k0qgK&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfDrpvgsNekwu5kisuvd9Uh93NerITf-noUeZYPdD4ECvA&oe=64AB15D2

[Craic]

The day I read a scientist say that the warming of Mars and consequently, the sun growing hotter might be one of the reasons for global warming on earth, I lost any trust I might have had in the "experts."

Of course, there's a thousand other questions I have, such as why the measuring instruments are found on concrete islands that are just getting bigger (thus reflecting more sun and heat), why instruments are being placed within a few feet of air-conditional exchangers, why an Ozone hole opened and suddenly closed over Kennebunkport Maine while George H. W. Bush was running for the presidency (amazing how it went away as soon as he was no longer president), how can paying some money for carbon offset can somehow mean your no longer responsible for putting the carbon in the air in the first place, why does Kyoto and other treaties often exempt the worst offenders, so on and so forth.

Look, it's simple. We can't introduce things into the air and not expect changes. But stop the fear-mongering, hyper-chihuahua barking idiocy that has proven false time and again. Sit down at the table and get to work on real ways forward, ways that include proven non-carbon emission sources of energy like dams and nuclear power plants. Reintroduce uranium enrichment that allows used pellets to be reused several times, vastly shortening the half life.

Until things like that happen, no one on the global-warming side will be able to convince others that this is nothing more than a pound of political BS built on an ounce of truth.

[willy]

And yet again:


Earth’s average temperature matches record high set a day earlier




https://apnews.com/article/global-heat-record-hottest-climate-change-july-483fc8e2a286062773692db1a37efe23

[Dwinsgames]

at risk of repeating myself for the slow people ....

http://geology.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/ice_ages2.gif

[willy]

at risk of repeating myself ....




Don't take the risk, please.

[Mach1]

https://jacklewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/23-07-06-006.jpg

[willy]

A little global warming for you:


The scorching summer of 2023 reaches ‘mind-blowing’ high temperatures

Death Valley hit 129°F (120°F at night), China set its all-time heat record, and a heatwave continues to roast Europe.

by Jeff Masters (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/author/jmasters/) and Bob Henson (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/author/bhenson/) July 17, 2023

[Leer en español] (https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/07/el-verano-de-2023-alcanza-temperaturas-alucinantes/)

The closest thing to a globe-encircling heat wave continues to bake many Northern Hemisphere locations during mid-July, 2023. Heat near or above all-time highs is surging in locations from Reno, Nevada, to Rome, Italy, and from geographies ranging from desert outposts to the sea surface. Many more records are expected to melt this week, as a consolidating El Niño pattern continues to release greenhouse-gas-trapped heat into the atmosphere that was stored in the ocean during three years of La Niña conditions.




https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/07/the-scorching-summer-of-2023-reaches-mind-blowing-high-temperatures/#:~:text=impacts%20and%20solutions.-,The%20scorching%20summer%20of%202023%20reaches%20 %27mind%2Dblowing%27%20high,heatwave%20continues%2 0to%20roast%20Europe.

[Mojouw]

at risk of repeating myself for the slow people ....

http://geology.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/ice_ages2.gif

Ok. I will bite. What is your point with this graphic? Because this is the text from the website it is sourced from:

"Presently, we are experiencing an abnormally long interglacial called the Holocene (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Holocene) that has lasted nearly 11,000 years. A new glaciation has been expected to begin; however, due to human induced climate change (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Climate_change) or anthropogenic climate change (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Natural_vs_anthropogenic_climate_change), the next glaciation is being delayed anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of years." -- https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods#cite_note-7


For what it is worth, for most of our development as a species it has basically been colder than it is now.

[Dwinsgames]

Ok. I will bite. What is your point with this graphic? Because this is the text from the website it is sourced from:

"Presently, we are experiencing an abnormally long interglacial called the Holocene (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Holocene) that has lasted nearly 11,000 years. A new glaciation has been expected to begin; however, due to human induced climate change (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Climate_change) or anthropogenic climate change (https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Natural_vs_anthropogenic_climate_change), the next glaciation is being delayed anywhere from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands of years." -- https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Glacial_and_interglacial_periods#cite_note-7


For what it is worth, for most of our development as a species it has basically been colder than it is now.


its a cycle look at the graph , the world goes through changes constantly

[Mojouw]

its a cycle look at the graph , the world goes through changes constantly
Sure, that is totally true.

But the Holocene (latest interglacial) has been extended beyond what previous warming cycles have lasted for and it is trending warmer each year - another odd behavior for interglacial periods.

Also, the peaks and valleys on that graph can look very different depending on the time scale you use.

For instance, we can look at just the holocene itself:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271688975/figure/fig5/AS:392287268950020@1470539981844/Chronology-of-the-Holocene-climate-and-its-correlation-with-settlement-history-on-Crete.png

Or we can look at just the last few thousand years - the black vertical on the graph below:

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-a034b51564c086645d014502e2b12721-lq

What these two show is that regardless of cause - human civilization as we know it has always existed in a really narrow band of climate outcomes. Make it too warm or too cold and we basically all die off. It has happened several times before. Many believe that climate changes have driven the collapse of multiple civilizations across the globe during the last 5 thousand years. During the medieval period a small change in climate (this one was a cooling event) had a major part to play in the "Dark Ages". A warming event at the end of the stone age may have spurred humans to develop agriculture and cities. Even further back, before the Holocene, dramatic climate changes have had massive impacts on the development and evolution of our species. Several pre modern human ancestor species went extinct due to their inability to adapt to changing environmental conditions. Changes in climate likely led to not only the dominant position of primates but sent our earliest ancestors scurrying out of the trees and charting a course of development that led to human beings.

Long story short -- we are incredibly sensitive to disruptions in climate by a handful of degrees either direction. And the current trends in the graphs and models indicate that we are leaving the band that has historically allowed human groups to thrive and entering a temperature/climate spectrum we have historically not done well in.

We can debate the causes and the solutions and the responsibility; but the impacts of even a handful of degree temp rise and the associated other environmental changes are not going to be fun.

[silver & black]

The question is: If we go all electric cars, kill off 90% of the cows/cattle, stop burning coal, get rid of all the natural gas stoves/ranges (hot water heaters, now) how long before the climate goes back to what no one really knows is normal? :lol: The whole thing is a bunch of hooey, IMO.

[Mach1]

The question is: If we go all electric cars, kill off 90% of the cows/cattle, stop burning coal, get rid of all the natural gas stoves/ranges (hot water heaters, now) how long before the climate goes back to what no one really knows is normal? :lol: The whole thing is a bunch of hooey, IMO.

Depends on how much you tax it.

Show me a time in earths history where the climate never changed.

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/293613526_3177002532554917_8240033413010589888_n.j pg?_nc_cat=100&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=7hRwk5uZRpoAX_j3xl0&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfBrasGfjnkdBJMTNgqbKZgK8HzCKCw-6YIhkMfDFRALsw&oe=64C56F67

[silver & black]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/293613526_3177002532554917_8240033413010589888_n.j pg?_nc_cat=100&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=7hRwk5uZRpoAX_j3xl0&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfBrasGfjnkdBJMTNgqbKZgK8HzCKCw-6YIhkMfDFRALsw&oe=64C56F67

Yup. And you being a Steelers fan.... how do you make steel without it?

[Dwinsgames]

Yup. And you being a Steelers fan.... how do you make steel without it?

well you can use coke ...ohh wait coke comes from coal so nevermind

[Hawkman]

A couple of things to think about, and I’m only picking one today. Electric cars. First of all, the CO2 emissions from the production of lithium ion batteries is tremendous. I would copy and paste the information that I’ve read, but can’t seem to do it from a tablet. Secondly, the supply chain of the materials that go into the batteries. We don’t mine any of the raw materials. Thirdly, we have a tiny fraction of the infrastructure to support millions of electric cars. It could take decades to achieve that. Forth, where is all that massive amount of additional electricity going to come from. Are we going to build more nuclear power plants? Everyone with a wind turbine on the top of their house? Everyone with solar panels? Lastly, the disposal/recycling of lithium batteries, wind turbine vanes, and solar panels is very problematic and will include adding to landfills or burning, that will create more CO2. Something to think about before mandating policies. I’m all in favor of reducing carbon emissions, but people are taking the wrong approach. The you have to do this, by this date, is not only unrealistic, but dangerous. Just my thoughts.

[Mach1]

just in case you forgot what products come from oil

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/123970160_3981481621880183_1818265073764935745_n.j pg?_nc_cat=110&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=4qx-pWxrSk4AX-d2xIU&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfASojp0J97aKM0tjsO428wGeKwhpDxBBwGXlFS7flYF rA&oe=64EA0997

[Steeler-in-west]

A couple of things to think about, and I’m only picking one today. Electric cars. First of all, the CO2 emissions from the production of lithium ion batteries is tremendous. I would copy and paste the information that I’ve read, but can’t seem to do it from a tablet. Secondly, the supply chain of the materials that go into the batteries. We don’t mine any of the raw materials. Thirdly, we have a tiny fraction of the infrastructure to support millions of electric cars. It could take decades to achieve that. Forth, where is all that massive amount of additional electricity going to come from. Are we going to build more nuclear power plants? Everyone with a wind turbine on the top of their house? Everyone with solar panels? Lastly, the disposal/recycling of lithium batteries, wind turbine vanes, and solar panels is very problematic and will include adding to landfills or burning, that will create more CO2. Something to think about before mandating policies. I’m all in favor of reducing carbon emissions, but people are taking the wrong approach. The you have to do this, by this date, is not only unrealistic, but dangerous. Just my thoughts.

The answer has always been to invest more in public transportation, subways, trains, rail lines. These should be in all medium to big cities. With rail or train lines connecting cities. We are really behind in this. The auto industry and its lobbyists are the main culprits in preventing this from happening. Maybe instead of sending hundreds of billions to Zelensky and his cronies we fix our transportation system?

[Hawkman]

The answer has always been to invest more in public transportation, subways, trains, rail lines. These should be in all medium to big cities. With rail or train lines connecting cities. We are really behind in this. The auto industry and its lobbyists are the main culprits in preventing this from happening. Maybe instead of sending hundreds of billions to Zelensky and his cronies we fix our transportation system?

Not really my point at all…..but okay, we have the largest number of metro systems in the world. Could there be more, I’m sure, but who exactly are we behind? I can take a train just about anywhere I’d like to go, and I often do. I’ve taken the high speed Acela train to Washington numerous times. I’ve taken the Silver Star and Silver Meteor to New York (Very civilized way to travel). I’ve taken the Chicago Limited from Pittsburgh to Chicago. I’d love to see more lines, but to bring this back to my real point…..to do that, you need tons more rail, more tunnels dug, much more rail inventory, (engines, cars, maintenance vehicles,etc). What do you suppose the carbon footprint would be on all of that. If you are going to redirect (we’ve only sent 75 billion in support of stalling the spread of Communism, not hundreds of billions), tax dollars…..have a plan don’t just throw money at it. The federal government is not responsible for city and municipality mass transit. They will help with the cost, but it’s up to that city and municipality to come up with creative ways to finance. The closest thing we have to a national railway system is Amtrak, and I have had good luck with them. Blanket statements don’t really achieve much of anything.

[Steeler-in-west]

Not really my point at all…..but okay, we have the largest number of metro systems in the world. Could there be more, I’m sure, but who exactly are we behind? I can take a train just about anywhere I’d like to go, and I often do. I’ve taken the high speed Acela train to Washington numerous times. I’ve taken the Silver Star and Silver Meteor to New York (Very civilized way to travel). I’ve taken the Chicago Limited from Pittsburgh to Chicago. I’d love to see more lines, but to bring this back to my real point…..to do that, you need tons more rail, more tunnels dug, much more rail inventory, (engines, cars, maintenance vehicles,etc). What do you suppose the carbon footprint would be on all of that. If you are going to redirect (we’ve only sent 75 billion in support of stalling the spread of Communism, not hundreds of billions), tax dollars…..have a plan don’t just throw money at it. The federal government is not responsible for city and municipality mass transit. They will help with the cost, but it’s up to that city and municipality to come up with creative ways to finance. The closest thing we have to a national railway system is Amtrak, and I have had good luck with them. Blanket statements don’t really achieve much of anything.

As i understand it you were saying that electric vehicles produce a huge carbon footprint. My point is that the only way to really avoid this huge increase in vehicle production and associated waste is by expanding public transportation. And your not portraying the real problem with mass transit. There is only one high speed rail in the US (that's the Acela at 150 mph) which you mentioned. However, just for instance, It takes the better part of a week to take a train from LA to NY - and its not much cheaper than taking a 6 hour flight - no wonder no one does it. Europe/Russia meanwhile are full of high speed trains (200 mph). China has the world largest concentration of high speed rail (up to 220 mph). Here in California we don't even have a train going from LA to Las Vegas or a high speed rail going to SF, not to mention the lack of any decent subway/rail system in LA city and county (we used to have the red car trains back in the day before the auto companies had them removed). The funds for mass transit btw, come from the state - which gets a portion of its funding for transportation from the federal government so your partially right. Bottom line is we are woefully behind in mass transit in this country. there is alot to improve upon. If your worried about the effects of gas powered cars or the rising carbon footprint from EV's better to start with improving mass transit.

As far as spending on Ukraine your right, its 75 billion - but feels like more. Btw, if you think we're spending that to fight communism than i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

[Mojouw]

There are several things on the mass transit issue, that I feel do not discussed enough.

Hawk and Steelers in West have brought up several that fall under the umbrella of electric vehicles are not a solution but (at best) a temporary band-aid until a real solution is invented.

Others include the fact that statements (not made by anyone here) like "Why can't we have a mass transit system like (Insert European Example Here)?" -- Well, that country is smaller than the state of Maryland that's why. I think that we often lose perspective on just how stupendously large the US really is. There is zero point in putting a mass transit system outside of metro areas. It just isn't realistic. Too large of an expanse and too few people. Cars and trucks will always need to be part of the "solution" for the US. The scale of the place necessitates it.

The other, and this is a personal gripe of mine, is that in the early days of the recycle movement (think crying fake Indians), corporations and manufacturers poured money into controlling the message and they succeeded in flummoxing everyone. Recycling/Renew/Sustainability (whatever you want to call it) has become ingrained in the US conversation as an individual issue and a solution at the household level. And even if EVERY household did ALL of the things 100% the way it was hoped -- it would be a drop in the ocean. Large scale industry dwarfs anything done by even aggregations of individuals. But by controlling the messaging for decades, industry has made this an individual issue. And as long as we still talk/think about it that way...nothing will change.

That circles back to electric vehicles. Because we have been convinced that individual decisions are the key to all this; people buy electric vehicles and are like "I'm doing a good thing!" Never stopping and thinking about the source of the electricity and the toxic nature of the creation and disposal of the battery that powers their fancy vehicle.

As has been pointed out before by several around these parts....nuclear power might be this actual solution sitting right in front of us and no one is willing to discuss it because it suffers from the worst case of "not in my backyard" ever. Plus there is the vexing issue of where do you dump all the byproducts....

[steelreserve]

There are several things on the mass transit issue, that I feel do not discussed enough.

Hawk and Steelers in West have brought up several that fall under the umbrella of electric vehicles are not a solution but (at best) a temporary band-aid until a real solution is invented.

Others include the fact that statements (not made by anyone here) like "Why can't we have a mass transit system like (Insert European Example Here)?" -- Well, that country is smaller than the state of Maryland that's why. I think that we often lose perspective on just how stupendously large the US really is. There is zero point in putting a mass transit system outside of metro areas. It just isn't realistic. Too large of an expanse and too few people. Cars and trucks will always need to be part of the "solution" for the US. The scale of the place necessitates it.

The other, and this is a personal gripe of mine, is that in the early days of the recycle movement (think crying fake Indians), corporations and manufacturers poured money into controlling the message and they succeeded in flummoxing everyone. Recycling/Renew/Sustainability (whatever you want to call it) has become ingrained in the US conversation as an individual issue and a solution at the household level. And even if EVERY household did ALL of the things 100% the way it was hoped -- it would be a drop in the ocean. Large scale industry dwarfs anything done by even aggregations of individuals. But by controlling the messaging for decades, industry has made this an individual issue. And as long as we still talk/think about it that way...nothing will change.

That circles back to electric vehicles. Because we have been convinced that individual decisions are the key to all this; people buy electric vehicles and are like "I'm doing a good thing!" Never stopping and thinking about the source of the electricity and the toxic nature of the creation and disposal of the battery that powers their fancy vehicle.

As has been pointed out before by several around these parts....nuclear power might be this actual solution sitting right in front of us and no one is willing to discuss it because it suffers from the worst case of "not in my backyard" ever. Plus there is the vexing issue of where do you dump all the byproducts....

The American West contains hundreds of thousands of square miles of the most empty land you have seen in your entire life. That is the answer to where you put as much nuclear stuff as you want. It is a simple problem to solve, except that a certain group of politicians does not want there to be a solution, they want to keep dragging on the climate game indefinitely because it helps them increase their own influence, control, spending, etc.

This is why it's hard to take it very seriously when someone tells you the climate situation is an emergency. If it really was a crisis with any sort of urgency at all, there are very straightforward actions that could be taken to solve it right now with existing technology. Instead we get a lot of posturing and a lot of make-work that does not seem to benefit anyone or anything except politically well-connected companies, and those who enjoy telling others what to do from their morally superior perch. It really says something that a certain horsefaced New York congressperson who is adored by the left once said we need a new Manhattan Project to bring us clean energy, apparently completely unaware of the results of the original Manhattan Project.

All of the other things you said about personal versus industrial consumption and differences in scale are absolutely true. However, I would say that they are all pointed out very frequently but dismissed or shouted down by those same zealots who love to tell everyone what to do, and by the politically well-connected who stand to benefit. It's not as if no one is talking about those things. They are brought up repeatedly. They are just filtered out before they make it into the great blue echo chamber, where the only people who believe such things must be a bunch of toothless pig farmers who drive large pickup trucks with confederate flag bumper stickers.

[vader29]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGxQ41EQQdQ

[Hawkman]

As i understand it you were saying that electric vehicles produce a huge carbon footprint. My point is that the only way to really avoid this huge increase in vehicle production and associated waste is by expanding public transportation. And your not portraying the real problem with mass transit. There is only one high speed rail in the US (that's the Acela at 150 mph) which you mentioned. However, just for instance, It takes the better part of a week to take a train from LA to NY - and its not much cheaper than taking a 6 hour flight - no wonder no one does it. Europe/Russia meanwhile are full of high speed trains (200 mph). China has the world largest concentration of high speed rail (up to 220 mph). Here in California we don't even have a train going from LA to Las Vegas or a high speed rail going to SF, not to mention the lack of any decent subway/rail system in LA city and county (we used to have the red car trains back in the day before the auto companies had them removed). The funds for mass transit btw, come from the state - which gets a portion of its funding for transportation from the federal government so your partially right. Bottom line is we are woefully behind in mass transit in this country. there is alot to improve upon. If your worried about the effects of gas powered cars or the rising carbon footprint from EV's better to start with improving mass transit.

As far as spending on Ukraine your right, its 75 billion - but feels like more. Btw, if you think we're spending that to fight communism than i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

I was following along until you made that juvenile last statement. Lost all credibility with me.

[willy]

............................................

This is why it's hard to take it very seriously when someone tells you the climate situation is an emergency. If it really was a crisis with any sort of urgency at all, there are very straightforward actions that could be taken to solve it right now with existing technology...........

Just because we're stupid doesn't mean it isn't a crisis. Just look at you. :)

[Steeler-in-west]

I was following along until you made that juvenile last statement. Lost all credibility with me.

I’m not trying to be rude, just trying to point out that the ‘fighting communism’ reason is outdated. I don’t even hear the MSM use that reason these days.

[steelreserve]

I’m not trying to be rude, just trying to point out that the ‘fighting communism’ reason is outdated. I don’t even hear the MSM use that reason these days.

Think about it, liberals don't want to fight communism, they embrace it. So that aspect is not talked about much anymore.

But these are the people who think the Palestinians are the same thing as the Rebel Alliance, and get all wrapped up in virtue signaling do-goodership. Same thing going on with Ukraine, they gain social approval from their peers by supporting it.

[Steeler-in-west]

Think about it, liberals don't want to fight communism, they embrace it. So that aspect is not talked about much anymore.

But these are the people who think the Palestinians are the same thing as the Rebel Alliance, and get all wrapped up in virtue signaling do-goodership. Same thing going on with Ukraine, they gain social approval from their peers by supporting it.

The left hates the Russians because they refuse to allow unchecked migrants overrun their country and don’t allow wokeness to ruin their people and culture like the rest of Europe does.

Meanwhile the West’s Democratic darling country Ukraine just arrested a US citizen residing there for posting his opinion on YouTube. His opinion was opposition to the war - 5 to 8 years in a labor camp for posting a YouTube video - real shining light of democracy the left is supporting there

[Dwinsgames]

The left hates the Russians because they refuse to allow unchecked migrants overrun their country and don’t allow wokeness to ruin their people and culture like the rest of Europe does.

Meanwhile the West’s Democratic darling country Ukraine just arrested a US citizen residing there for posting his opinion on YouTube. His opinion was opposition to the war - 5 to 8 years in a labor camp for posting a YouTube video - real shining light of democracy the left is supporting there


smh .............. and that is what Bidens administration is trying to do here

[willy]

The left hates the Russians because they refuse to allow unchecked migrants overrun their country and don’t allow wokeness to ruin their people and culture like the rest of Europe does.

Meanwhile the West’s Democratic darling country Ukraine just arrested a US citizen residing there for posting his opinion on YouTube. His opinion was opposition to the war - 5 to 8 years in a labor camp for posting a YouTube video - real shining light of democracy the left is supporting there

^^^^ Imagine? I knew it but I never thought I'd see it writing. Wow!

[steelreserve]

The left hates the Russians because they refuse to allow unchecked migrants overrun their country and don’t allow wokeness to ruin their people and culture like the rest of Europe does.

Meanwhile the West’s Democratic darling country Ukraine just arrested a US citizen residing there for posting his opinion on YouTube. His opinion was opposition to the war - 5 to 8 years in a labor camp for posting a YouTube video - real shining light of democracy the left is supporting there

If you want to compare Russia and the EU culturally, absolutely the EU is just dogshit.

On the other hand, I don't think it's a good thing that the leader of Russia is a dangerous megalomaniac who has started several brutal wars.

On the other hand, the leftists running the EU are also dangerous megalomaniacs - they just want to poison everything by passing rules instead of destroying it with tanks.

Screw the whole lot of them, that's about where I'm at.

[Steeler-in-west]

If you want to compare Russia and the EU culturally, absolutely the EU is just dogshit.

On the other hand, I don't think it's a good thing that the leader of Russia is a dangerous megalomaniac who has started several brutal wars.

On the other hand, the leftists running the EU are also dangerous megalomaniacs - they just want to poison everything by passing rules instead of destroying it with tanks.

Screw the whole lot of them, that's about where I'm at.

Who are the bigger megalomaniacs? Our leaders or theirs? I think its debatable, the real problem though is that it only takes one megalomaniac(s) with nuclear weapons to ruin everything. We're probably a lot closer to an accidental direct military engagement with them than our media likes to tell us...then its all over

[Mach1]

New Claims of Record-Setting Temperatures Are Nothing but Hot Air

Recently headlines in mainstream media such as the BBC, CNN, Forbes, and The Washington Post blared the consistent message that July 4, 2023 was the hottest day in history, or at least in the past 125,000 years. The headlines and stories show just how gullible the media is, or alternatively, that they are so wedded to the climate crisis narrative that they would publish a story they know is impossible to verify and is probably untrue.

The Washington Post’s (WP) story was typical of the foolish claims in the mainstream media, “This July 4 was hot. Earth’s hottest day on record, in fact.” What the WP presented as a “fact” was nothing more than computer model speculation based on a wide variety of disparate types of data from satellite measurements to surface data, etc., blended and reanalyzed to produce an alarming but unsubstantiated result. Although the WP claimed the data was from the U.S. National Centers for Environmental Prediction, it wasn’t. The WP’s claims, as with those made in the headlines and alarming stories in other so-called news outlets, came from a single source: the “Climate Reanalyzer” at the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine (UM).

UM’s Climate Reanalyzer is not an official U.S. government source of data and does not produce original data. Instead, it manipulates and reframes data from other sources. Had the WP or other mainstream media outlets bothered to check with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about the claims of record-setting heat, they would have found the agency said surface temperature data does not confirm global high-temperature records were broken in early July.

Still, Paulo Ceppi, a climate scientist at London’s Grantham Institute, told the WP with confidence, “It hasn’t been this warm since at least 125,000 years ago, which was the previous interglacial.” The WP apparently didn’t even think to question that claim.

In addition to the fact that the idea of a “global average temperature” is a made-up statistic having no real weather or climate meaning, there were no weather satellites even 50 years ago, nor ground-based measuring stations in more than a smattering of locations more than 150 years ago, much less hundreds of thousands of years ago.

“One obvious problem with the updated narrative is that there are no satellite data from 125,000 years ago,” wrote Steve Milloy, operator of JunkScience.com, in a Wall Street Journal article. “Calculated estimates of current temperatures can’t be fairly compared with guesses of global temperature from thousands of years ago.”

Climate analyst Paul Homewood made a similar point, writing:

The idea that we know the global temperature today is absurd in itself. But the idea that we actually know what it was on a given day 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, never mind thousands of years ago is sheer fraud.

And the claim that it is hotter now than 5,000 years ago is a total lie—there is abundant evidence that it was much warmer then.

Worse still for the “hottest day ever narrative” is that the measured average temperature on July 4, actually recorded around the world, is much less than claimed. Milloy notes,

A more likely alternative to the 62.6-degree estimate is something around 57.5 degrees. The latter is an average of actual surface temperature measurements taken around the world and processed on a minute-by-minute basis by a website called temperature.global. The numbers have been steady this year, with no spike in July.

As Heartland Institute President James Taylor writes in a Climate Realism post on the topic, numerous sources such as the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and peer-reviewed research published in the journal Science show historic temperatures have been warmer for long stretches of time since we came out of the last ice age approximately 12,000 years ago, when human civilizations began to form, than they are at present. Taylor writes:

[H]istorical temperatures derived from ice core samples, as reported in the peer-reviewed journal Science … shows the warming of the past 150 [years] leaves current temperatures well below temperatures that have predominated during most of the time period that human civilization has existed. (see the figure below)

The chart below from the IPCC also contradicts the claim that July 4, 2023, or any of the days that followed, established new global temperature records:

I’m not familiar enough with the UM’s Climate Reanalyzer to judge whether it is a useful tool for some purpose or set of purposes beyond generating alarming but false headlines about climate change. In any case, the “data” it generates, if it can be called that, should in no way, shape, or form be taken as authoritative or used in place of actual temperature measurements when presenting local, regional, or global average temperatures.

The mainstream media should be ashamed of itself for hyping yet another big climate lie.

https://cornwallalliance.org/2023/07/new-claims-of-record-setting-temperatures-are-nothing-but-hot-air/

[Steeldude]

I live in California. We didn't turn on the AC until mid-July. In 2022, we turned it on in mid-May.

https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/imageedit_5761_2487143486.jpg

[Orion]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/145/365/520/original/1ad41c19d08d3bc7.jpeg

- - - Updated - - -

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/145/365/471/original/37b83504d5dfd1e7.jpeg

[Orion]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/145/383/090/original/cf7a13f5c4dc9cec.jpeg

[Orion]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/145/379/755/original/97929537fe73e6f4.jpeg

[Orion]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/145/452/495/original/82e8991f262d14f1.png

[Dwinsgames]

Aug 18 2023 10:23 am 63 degrees ... Alexa say expect a high of 73 and sunshine ... yep that Global warming .............

[DuckHodges]

if global warming's in your ass i'd talk to a doctor about that :chuckle:

[Born2Steel]

I just recently bought a new car. I am the guy that researches everything for months before even narrowing it down to a top 5 models to buy. I did look at the no-plug hybrids pretty intently. The gas mileage on those was what attracted me, and the no-plug part. I did not buy one. The batteries in those cars are only expected to last 100k miles. Then, it's the price of another used car to replace the battery. Only way I would get one of those would be on a lease deal.

[Dwinsgames]

to damn cold to enjoy my deck in august .... yeah this is global warming alright but someone forgot the warm part ... ohh its 56 out right now

[Mojouw]

It is going north of 100 the next several days in my area. Much of the country south of the Ohio River and east of the Rockies is ticketed for the same 100+ temps.

So is that global warming? Or does the weather in only our respective hometowns matter?

We can debate global warming and climate change like reasonable folks...no problem. But the specific weather on this guy or that guy's deck in August is not an indicator of much of anything besides how many layers you need to put on to drink outside.

[Born2Steel]

I'm not sure why this is still an argument of extremes. We ALL know that certain gasses when leaked into the atmosphere cause the greenhouse effect. That is known. We also ALL know that climate changes. This planet Earth is a living planet. EVERYTHING is constantly changing. It's not man-made issues causing weather patterns or glacial movements.

Can we as a species do things that will cause global damage and greenhouse issues that eventually kill all or most life on Earth? Yes. That is exactly what nuclear winter is. Can we as a species take measures to ensure things don't become that bad? Also yes.

We want to continue to live on the only planet we know of that will support us. If that means I have to buy tote bags to put groceries into instead of plastic or paper, so be it. Not a huge deal in my life honestly. If everyone did that 1 thing would it make any difference overall? IDK, maybe, maybe not. But is it worth the high blood pressure debates on it? If person A decides to buy an all electric car because that's what they want, and person B buys a 12mpg, 40gal tank, biggest truck on the block, because that's what they want, it's just a preference. NOT some manifesto that we need to go to war over. Sometimes it is, but not usually.

It seems to me that there has been so much extremist argument of so many minute details that can neither be proven nor disproven, that now any quarter given or compromise is considered utter defeat. When in reality it is the only path to success. Such pitiful little hills to be fighting over.

[Orion]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/145/881/472/original/d20ce19aebd3b062.jpeg

[Steeldude]

The American West contains hundreds of thousands of square miles of the most empty land you have seen in your entire life. That is the answer to where you put as much nuclear stuff as you want. It is a simple problem to solve, except that a certain group of politicians does not want there to be a solution, they want to keep dragging on the climate game indefinitely because it helps them increase their own influence, control, spending, etc.

This is why it's hard to take it very seriously when someone tells you the climate situation is an emergency. If it really was a crisis with any sort of urgency at all, there are very straightforward actions that could be taken to solve it right now with existing technology. Instead we get a lot of posturing and a lot of make-work that does not seem to benefit anyone or anything except politically well-connected companies, and those who enjoy telling others what to do from their morally superior perch. It really says something that a certain horsefaced New York congressperson who is adored by the left once said we need a new Manhattan Project to bring us clean energy, apparently completely unaware of the results of the original Manhattan Project.

All of the other things you said about personal versus industrial consumption and differences in scale are absolutely true. However, I would say that they are all pointed out very frequently but dismissed or shouted down by those same zealots who love to tell everyone what to do, and by the politically well-connected who stand to benefit. It's not as if no one is talking about those things. They are brought up repeatedly. They are just filtered out before they make it into the great blue echo chamber, where the only people who believe such things must be a bunch of toothless pig farmers who drive large pickup trucks with confederate flag bumper stickers.

Remember the electric bus scam the Dems pushed? It went bankrupt, as we all knew it would because it was designed to fail. Another pump-n-dump.

- - - Updated - - -


As i understand it you were saying that electric vehicles produce a huge carbon footprint. My point is that the only way to really avoid this huge increase in vehicle production and associated waste is by expanding public transportation. And your not portraying the real problem with mass transit. There is only one high speed rail in the US (that's the Acela at 150 mph) which you mentioned. However, just for instance, It takes the better part of a week to take a train from LA to NY - and its not much cheaper than taking a 6 hour flight - no wonder no one does it. Europe/Russia meanwhile are full of high speed trains (200 mph). China has the world largest concentration of high speed rail (up to 220 mph). Here in California we don't even have a train going from LA to Las Vegas or a high speed rail going to SF, not to mention the lack of any decent subway/rail system in LA city and county (we used to have the red car trains back in the day before the auto companies had them removed). The funds for mass transit btw, come from the state - which gets a portion of its funding for transportation from the federal government so your partially right. Bottom line is we are woefully behind in mass transit in this country. there is alot to improve upon. If your worried about the effects of gas powered cars or the rising carbon footprint from EV's better to start with improving mass transit.

As far as spending on Ukraine your right, its 75 billion - but feels like more. Btw, if you think we're spending that to fight communism than i have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.

The crime and filth on public transportation will remain.

California starts bullet train projects, but of course they were not meant to actually be built.

Green energy nonsense is just a money scam.

[steelreserve]

Can we as a species do things that will cause global damage and greenhouse issues that eventually kill all or most life on Earth? Yes.

I would say that is absolutely not the case. It is generally agreed upon that we have burned at least a third of the fossil fuels that will ever be recoverable on Earth. That's given us a temperature increase of what, 1 degree. Since the warming effectiveness of carbon dioxide increases in an inverse square relationship with the concentration, what do you get if you burn the other two-thirds? Another one degree. And then that's it, the most you can do. You can't make the planet uninhabitable and you can't make it like Venus, that much carbon-based fuel simply doesn't exist.

So sure, you can change things, no one is denying the basic principle at work. But can you change them enough to even make a tangible difference in your/most people's lives? I suppose that's open to debate, but my guess is probably not. Certainly you cannot do what the people who are most freaked out about the climate say.

Their argument is essentially saying what would happen if there was an infinite supply of carbon-based fuels which were consumed indefinitely. Of course, everyone knows that's not the case, if they take about 5 seconds to stop and think about it. But that does explain why climate change is always presented as an open-ended question with no definite parameters - because that's the only way you can get to those doomsday scenarios, by leaving out important parts of the equation.

[Mojouw]

I would say that is absolutely not the case. It is generally agreed upon that we have burned at least a third of the fossil fuels that will ever be recoverable on Earth. That's given us a temperature increase of what, 1 degree. Since the warming effectiveness of carbon dioxide increases in an inverse square relationship with the concentration, what do you get if you burn the other two-thirds? Another one degree. And then that's it, the most you can do. You can't make the planet uninhabitable and you can't make it like Venus, that much carbon-based fuel simply doesn't exist.

So sure, you can change things, no one is denying the basic principle at work. But can you change them enough to even make a tangible difference in your/most people's lives? I suppose that's open to debate, but my guess is probably not. Certainly you cannot do what the people who are most freaked out about the climate say.

Their argument is essentially saying what would happen if there was an infinite supply of carbon-based fuels which were consumed indefinitely. Of course, everyone knows that's not the case, if they take about 5 seconds to stop and think about it. But that does explain why climate change is always presented as an open-ended question with no definite parameters - because that's the only way you can get to those doomsday scenarios, by leaving out important parts of the equation.

Say that it all stops at 2 degree C temperature rise. Where do you propose big chunks of the eastern seaboard of the US lives? Miami does not exist with the generally accepted sea level rise associated with that amount of warming. Other coastal US cities are seriously compromised as well. Heck, during a previous administration, the DOD caused a crapstorm when they released a report saying 1-2 degrees of warming would basically cause an alarming percentage of their naval bases to cease to function both domestically and abroad (Diego Garcia as an example).

What about the oodles of people globally that will be underwater?

Or is the rough correlation of 2-3 meters in sea level rise per 1-2 degrees in temp rise not going to happen in this scenario?

[steelreserve]

Say that it all stops at 2 degree C temperature rise. Where do you propose big chunks of the eastern seaboard of the US lives? Miami does not exist with the generally accepted sea level rise associated with that amount of warming. Other coastal US cities are seriously compromised as well. Heck, during a previous administration, the DOD caused a crapstorm when they released a report saying 1-2 degrees of warming would basically cause an alarming percentage of their naval bases to cease to function both domestically and abroad (Diego Garcia as an example).

What about the oodles of people globally that will be underwater?

Or is the rough correlation of 2-3 meters in sea level rise per 1-2 degrees in temp rise not going to happen in this scenario?

Remember, this happens a millimeter at a time over the course of two or three lifetimes, maybe more. You don't just wake up one day and suddenly you're 10 feet underwater. My guess is that people in those areas will gradually do things to adjust to it as it happens, and the average person will not even notice it.

In any case, what kind of argument are you even making? That keeping sea level exactly the same as it is now is a realistic goal? What kind of nonsense is that? It has risen and fallen by hundreds of feet many times. The seafloor under the North Sea used to be inhabited dry land before a major sea level rise, and they are dredging up primitive artifacts there all the time (it is called Doggerland, look it up). Humanity survived this with Stone Age technology, and the environment survived it too.

Basically what we have here is natural variability that gives you about a 400-foot band of what sea level might be at any given time. Humans have the ability to add a couple percent to that, and for some reason people lock on to that and lose their shit and think it's the end of the world.

The absolute worst possible outcome of climate change is an inconvenience, not a cataclysm. That is just the math of it. But of course, who am I to question it. The Experts have spoken and The Science has been settled, according to a bunch of people who do not even understand the experts or the science at all themselves, but who sure do like to yell and order people around.

[Mach1]

Name a time in earths history when the climate did not change.

[Mojouw]

Remember, this happens a millimeter at a time over the course of two or three lifetimes, maybe more. You don't just wake up one day and suddenly you're 10 feet underwater. My guess is that people in those areas will gradually do things to adjust to it as it happens, and the average person will not even notice it.

In any case, what kind of argument are you even making? That keeping sea level exactly the same as it is now is a realistic goal? What kind of nonsense is that? It has risen and fallen by hundreds of feet many times. The seafloor under the North Sea used to be inhabited dry land before a major sea level rise, and they are dredging up primitive artifacts there all the time (it is called Doggerland, look it up). Humanity survived this with Stone Age technology, and the environment survived it too.

Basically what we have here is natural variability that gives you about a 400-foot band of what sea level might be at any given time. Humans have the ability to add a couple percent to that, and for some reason people lock on to that and lose their shit and think it's the end of the world.

The absolute worst possible outcome of climate change is an inconvenience, not a cataclysm. That is just the math of it. But of course, who am I to question it. The Experts have spoken and The Science has been settled, according to a bunch of people who do not even understand the experts or the science at all themselves, but who sure do like to yell and order people around.

I know all about Doggerland. There is a fascinating woodhenge there that likely predates similar structures on the main British Isles.

The sea level rises and falls you are referencing have been related to glacial maximums and inter-glacial warmings and those sea level changes have had incredible impacts on the population of stone age humans and pre-stone age human ancestors. In fact, they may have totally driven our evolutionary development. Other times they killed off entire swaths of the human or human like population on the planet.

Going by past precedents when there were FAR less people on the planet and far more open spaces to move into, sea level rises have had a major impact on our history as a species. Over the next several decades it will likely be the single biggest driver of social, economic, and political change. According to some models, entire swaths of the South Pacific will no longer be habitable. Are those models alarmist? Maybe but they also have some fairly detailed math behind them.

You are presenting a contrarian set of claims and view of the science. With nothing more than your statements as support. That is kind of a hard road to hoe. Maybe you know more than the collective knowledge of humanity to date on the subject - it is actually possible. Maybe you have an incredible series of insights. But right now, it is you and oil companies hanging out all by yourselves...

[Mach1]

The only way to tie up all that water is to have an ice age. The climate cult would lose their shit over that also.

[Mojouw]

The only way to tie up all that water is to have an ice age. The climate cult would lose their shit over that also.

As long as you are not in northern Idaho....you would likely escape being buried under a glacier. So you might not lose your shit. But that post-ice age flood....that might show up at your doorstep.

[Mach1]

Cool beach front property :chuckle:

[steelreserve]

I know all about Doggerland. There is a fascinating woodhenge there that likely predates similar structures on the main British Isles.

The sea level rises and falls you are referencing have been related to glacial maximums and inter-glacial warmings and those sea level changes have had incredible impacts on the population of stone age humans and pre-stone age human ancestors. In fact, they may have totally driven our evolutionary development. Other times they killed off entire swaths of the human or human like population on the planet.

Going by past precedents when there were FAR less people on the planet and far more open spaces to move into, sea level rises have had a major impact on our history as a species. Over the next several decades it will likely be the single biggest driver of social, economic, and political change. According to some models, entire swaths of the South Pacific will no longer be habitable. Are those models alarmist? Maybe but they also have some fairly detailed math behind them.

You are presenting a contrarian set of claims and view of the science. With nothing more than your statements as support. That is kind of a hard road to hoe. Maybe you know more than the collective knowledge of humanity to date on the subject - it is actually possible. Maybe you have an incredible series of insights. But right now, it is you and oil companies hanging out all by yourselves...

As I have said before - I don't need to be some one-in-a-million, unheralded genius who somehow knows better than every scientist. All I have to do is know better than YOU.

See, you are not adding any new information to humanity's collective knowledge here either - we are drawing from the same set of available information and taking up sides. Based on that, you have a far inferior answer to the question because you have a much worse understanding of the parameters. Even when you admit that the parameters are far less than the climate alarmists would have us believe, you.catastrophise them with another series of yes-buts.

That probably describes 99% of the general public, by the way, so don't feel bad. I would bet my bottom dollar that a supermajority of climate activists haven't given a thought at all to what the limits of the equation actually are, or for that matter even have more than the most basic elementary-school concept of how and why carbon dioxide has a warming effect. Do I know better than all of them, too? Hell yes I do. Congratulations, you've got a bunch of loud angry dumb people on your side, it means nothing. I'd much rather have science and math, not to mention common sense.

Again, it is not that I am presenting claims contrary to science, or saying that science is wrong. I simply understand the science better than YOU.

[Mojouw]

As I have said before - I don't need to be some one-in-a-million, unheralded genius who somehow knows better than every scientist. All I have to do is know better than YOU.

See, you are not adding any new information to humanity's collective knowledge here either - we are drawing from the same set of available information and taking up sides. Based on that, you have a far inferior answer to the question because you have a much worse understanding of the parameters. Even when you admit that the parameters are far less than the climate alarmists would have us believe, you.catastrophise them with another series of yes-buts.

That probably describes 99% of the general public, by the way, so don't feel bad. I would bet my bottom dollar that a supermajority of climate activists haven't given a thought at all to what the limits of the equation actually are, or for that matter even have more than the most basic elementary-school concept of how and why carbon dioxide has a warming effect. Do I know better than all of them, too? Hell yes I do. Congratulations, you've got a bunch of loud angry dumb people on your side, it means nothing. I'd much rather have science and math, not to mention common sense.

Again, it is not that I am presenting claims contrary to science, or saying that science is wrong. I simply understand the science better than YOU.

So....why is there no one else understanding the science as you do or drawing the same conclusions that you are? I literally can not find anyone else making the arguments that you are making.

That would seem to put you in the camp of making and "extraordinary claim". That, by extension, mandates extraordinary evidence. Which you seem to not have? Or are you just not sharing? Because the relationship equation you spoke about is not new, revelatory, or confusing to a great number of people across the globe. And I can not find anyone else that agrees with your projections. Why is that?

And isolating climate concerns to only rises in temperature is ridiculous. It isn't "yes but" at all to articulate how climate is a series of interlocked systems where changing the parameters for one variable cascades through a series of other variables. Anything else is a cheap ploy to distract from the magic trick of denying the significant impacts of shifts in the various parameters of the overall system.

[steelreserve]

So....why is there no one else understanding the science as you do or drawing the same conclusions that you are? I literally can not find anyone else making the arguments that you are making.

That would seem to put you in the camp of making and "extraordinary claim". That, by extension, mandates extraordinary evidence. Which you seem to not have? Or are you just not sharing? Because the relationship equation you spoke about is not new, revelatory, or confusing to a great number of people across the globe. And I can not find anyone else that agrees with your projections. Why is that?

Sigh. No offense, but the way that it looks like most of your opinions are formed is that you have to be spoon-fed a canned hypothesis, supporting evidence, and conclusion all in one, and then when you find one you like, you dig in by researching other sources that repeat exactly the same thing, then you ignore anything that is said outside of that envelope. Then when one of those concepts that you ignored is brought up, you say "no one is saying that, youre the only one saying it." When challenged in a way that the exact same basic argument does not refute, obfuscate. I don't pretend to know where you learned to debate that way, but when you do it, all it says is "I won't look outside my bubble" or "I can't think for myself." You have absolutely no ability to look at a hypothesis or viewpoint with which you are presented, look at other related information that goes along with it, and process that into a logical conclusion.

I used to believe in the climate shit as much as anyone, until eventually it became clear that huge parts of it either didn't square with each other or were simply left out.

I am not really claiming anything that is outrageous or that disagrees with any of the established science about thermodynamics or climate. I am not basing anything on wingnut alt-right sources. It is simply looking at and interpreting the same evidence presented by the same well-respected scientific community that you are.

See, the thing about climate change is that what is currently being presented as "the science" is an incomplete, open-ended equation. You talk about things that "no one is saying" - well, typically a scientific problem like this goes "this much of A gives you this much of B, and here's why." 50-plus years in, climate science is still at "here's why, but there's no A or B," or at best, "A and B are unclear, just trust us."

Why is no one talking about A or B? Well, that is where your argument apparently stops and goes back to the canned answer. What about finding A or B? Turns out there is plenty of information about that. The fact that you are ignoring it doesn't mean that no one is saying it. And the fact that no one is adding it on to your canned answer certainly doesn't mean that no one is saying it. Of course no one is saying it within your bubble. It's to their advantage to leave it open-ended. But it is all very straightforward, and whatever rationale you have for being unable to comprehend things outside of your echo chamber is not really worthy of much respect.


And isolating climate concerns to only rises in temperature is ridiculous. It isn't "yes but" at all to articulate how climate is a series of interlocked systems where changing the parameters for one variable cascades through a series of other variables. Anything else is a cheap ploy to distract from the magic trick of denying the significant impacts of shifts in the various parameters of the overall system.

This part basically just says "We really don't understand how this works because it's too complicated - you have to trust our rather extreme viewpoint and action plan because no one understands how it works!" So more nonsense. Continue your gyrations, and I look forward to hearing about how I moved the goalposts in my unhinged rant.

[Mojouw]

Sigh. No offense, but the way that it looks like most of your opinions are formed is that you have to be spoon-fed a canned hypothesis, supporting evidence, and conclusion all in one, and then when you find one you like, you dig in by researching other sources that repeat exactly the same thing, then you ignore anything that is said outside of that envelope. Then when one of those concepts that you ignored is brought up, you say "no one is saying that, youre the only one saying it." When challenged in a way that the exact same basic argument does not refute, obfuscate. I don't pretend to know where you learned to debate that way, but when you do it, all it says is "I won't look outside my bubble" or "I can't think for myself." You have absolutely no ability to look at a hypothesis or viewpoint with which you are presented, look at other related information that goes along with it, and process that into a logical conclusion.

I used to believe in the climate shit as much as anyone, until eventually it became clear that huge parts of it either didn't square with each other or were simply left out.

I am not really claiming anything that is outrageous or that disagrees with any of the established science about thermodynamics or climate. I am not basing anything on wingnut alt-right sources. It is simply looking at and interpreting the same evidence presented by the same well-respected scientific community that you are.

See, the thing about climate change is that what is currently being presented as "the science" is an incomplete, open-ended equation. You talk about things that "no one is saying" - well, typically a scientific problem like this goes "this much of A gives you this much of B, and here's why." 50-plus years in, climate science is still at "here's why, but there's no A or B," or at best, "A and B are unclear, just trust us."

Why is no one talking about A or B? Well, that is where your argument apparently stops and goes back to the canned answer. What about finding A or B? Turns out there is plenty of information about that. The fact that you are ignoring it doesn't mean that no one is saying it. And the fact that no one is adding it on to your canned answer certainly doesn't mean that no one is saying it. Of course no one is saying it within your bubble. It's to their advantage to leave it open-ended. But it is all very straightforward, and whatever rationale you have for being unable to comprehend things outside of your echo chamber is not really worthy of much respect.



This part basically just says "We really don't understand how this works because it's too complicated - you have to trust our rather extreme viewpoint and action plan because no one understands how it works!" So more nonsense. Continue your gyrations, and I look forward to hearing about how I moved the goalposts in my unhinged rant.

That's a great deal of words that really doesn't say anything.

1. I have never, to my recollection endorsed an "action plan". I have only ever stated that human driven climate change is real, highly complicated, and potentially incredibly impactful.
2. You have not presented enough of a hypothesis to evaluate. I have asked for clarification, and you can only resort to insults and no further explanation or data. Curiously, you now seem to be critiquing the scientific method as method of knowledge production...bold position to take.
3. Not sure what echo chamber you believe I live in....but I suspect none of it is true. Again....you assume much.
5. Reducing "climate" down to temperature is just silly. If you understand the mechanisms of atmospheric CO2 as well as you seem to, you surely know how that then touches tons of other global systems that can have significant impacts on all our lives. I am not sure why you seem to want to ignore that portion of the discussion.
4. Basic point is that I am actually curious and attempting to understand whatever point(s) you are making. What I have understood runs counter to almost everything else I have ever come across on the subject. Again, out of curiosity, I attempted to engage to see how you have come to such a singular conclusion.

Feel free to continue to deliver something about how I am too stupid and liberal to understand or use your big-boy words and explain something. Either way, I will get my money's worth out of it.

[Steeler-in-west]

As far as I see it, we’re in an intergalacial period or age. Opposite of ice age, where it’s a period of overall warmth where the glaciers are receding. Apparently there are historical records of 17 of these cycles between glacial (ice age) and intergalacial periods. I don’t see man being able to influence overall climate at all (whatever they may influence is negligible). I haven’t seen any proof to the contrary. It’s all “we may be influencing it so we better be careful and pull out all the stops - Just in case)

[steelreserve]

That's a great deal of words that really doesn't say anything.

1. I have never, to my recollection endorsed an "action plan". I have only ever stated that human driven climate change is real, highly complicated, and potentially incredibly impactful.
2. You have not presented enough of a hypothesis to evaluate. I have asked for clarification, and you can only resort to insults and no further explanation or data. Curiously, you now seem to be critiquing the scientific method as method of knowledge production...bold position to take.
3. Not sure what echo chamber you believe I live in....but I suspect none of it is true. Again....you assume much.
5. Reducing "climate" down to temperature is just silly. If you understand the mechanisms of atmospheric CO2 as well as you seem to, you surely know how that then touches tons of other global systems that can have significant impacts on all our lives. I am not sure why you seem to want to ignore that portion of the discussion.
4. Basic point is that I am actually curious and attempting to understand whatever point(s) you are making. What I have understood runs counter to almost everything else I have ever come across on the subject. Again, out of curiosity, I attempted to engage to see how you have come to such a singular conclusion.

Feel free to continue to deliver something about how I am too stupid and liberal to understand or use your big-boy words and explain something. Either way, I will get my money's worth out of it.

I mean, it is all right there in the first post, a response to someone else, and it is very straightforward. It really does appear the problem is that you are too stupid and liberal to understand it.

Other poster: We can kill off most life on Earth with greenhouse games.

Me: No, we can't. Here is the maximum greenhouse effect, based on readily available information about how much fossil fuel is left in the world and what the warming effect of that would be, based on what virtually all scientists agree is the mechanism that causes the greenhouse effect. Here is the most likely actual number in degrees, based on the available data and commonly accepted scientific principles.

You: Liberal sources never talk about a maximum limit! They never talk about concrete numbers! None of them account for these fairly obvious things, so you must be making it up!

Then to the rest of it, since a couple degrees is pretty much all you're going to get whether you like it or not ... I say that not knowing everything about it besides what's happened when the same occurred in the past, it'll probably turn out fine. You say that it's so complicated no one could ever understand, so AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! Really it looks pretty foolish.

[Mojouw]

I mean, it is all right there in the first post, a response to someone else, and it is very straightforward. It really does appear the problem is that you are too stupid and liberal to understand it.

Other poster: We can kill off most life on Earth with greenhouse games.

Me: No, we can't. Here is the maximum greenhouse effect, based on readily available information about how much fossil fuel is left in the world and what the warming effect of that would be, based on what virtually all scientists agree is the mechanism that causes the greenhouse effect. Here is the most likely actual number in degrees, based on the available data and commonly accepted scientific principles.

You: Liberal sources never talk about a maximum limit! They never talk about concrete numbers! None of them account for these fairly obvious things, so you must be making it up!

Then to the rest of it, since a couple degrees is pretty much all you're going to get whether you like it or not ... I say that not knowing everything about it besides what's happened when the same occurred in the past, it'll probably turn out fine. You say that it's so complicated no one could ever understand, so AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH! Really it looks pretty foolish.

Ok. So, you got your usual nothing but your own POV. Not sure how science is a liberal source - but that is another discussion.

Again, I have tried to be transparent and open to discussion. I was and am genuinely interested in discussion - but you've consistently chosen to take the path of insults and closing off discussion. Again -- I get a chuckle over coffee or beer either way.

[Mojouw]

As far as I see it, we’re in an intergalacial period or age. Opposite of ice age, where it’s a period of overall warmth where the glaciers are receding. Apparently there are historical records of 17 of these cycles between glacial (ice age) and intergalacial periods. I don’t see man being able to influence overall climate at all (whatever they may influence is negligible). I haven’t seen any proof to the contrary. It’s all “we may be influencing it so we better be careful and pull out all the stops - Just in case)

That is the general pattern.

Our current interglacial is "odd" for a few reasons. It is longer than most previous. I don't have the numbers in front of me and I have no desire to look them up, but I think it is generally believed that we should be heading toward a cooling period. But, that is an interesting assumption because our current period (the Holocene) has been an oddly stable one with what can only be viewed as a "climatic optimum" for human life as we know it (farming, cities, seafaring, etc). The Holocene has been far more stable in a far narrower band of conditions than all other interglacial periods. The other "odd" thing about the Holocene is the much debated "hockey stick graph" - where global temps skyrocket during the last 200 years due to fossil fuels.

The general theory is that temps slowly rose coming out of the last glacial period and reached an ideal level. Then from about 10K-5K years ago, they stayed there. This is when people really exploded in terms of development. We learned how to farm, live in cities, and populations took off. Then from 5K to about 1300 AD, temps began to gradually cool. This cooling was interrupted by an odd thing called the "Medieval Warm Period" (which is still not totally clear what happened and how global it was) where temps seemed to rise back up a bit, but still off the original Holocene optimum levels. Somewhere between 1300-1800 AD (the dating is broad because there are regional differences), we see evidence for the "Little Ice Age". During this time temps drop noticeably. Existing alpine glaciers grow, the Thames freezes solid, growing seasons shorten, stuff like that.

Then we hit the "industrial age". And the data plots out a dramatic spoke in global temps. All the stuff in the above paragraph is variations of roughly 0.5-0.8 degrees C above or below the Holocene baseline. Since about 1880, the temp has risen 1 degree C in a really short period of time. Depending on what projections you want to put your stock into, we are ticketed for another 2-3 degree C rise (some say even higher - but let's leave that aside). This is where I haven't looked at the data in a long time. But the current 2023 temp averages are within shouting distance of temp averages in previous interglacials that did not see the Earth erupt into a ball of fire or anything. I believe a 1-1.5 degree C rise over the pre 1800's temps is within previous interglacial precedents. It is the additional rise that gets everyone worried. Somewhere not very far above where we are now, is, to the best of our ability to measure, somewhat unprecedented territory for average temps across the globe.

The "somewhat" means that we can find broad comparable for a 2-3 degree C+ rise in temps, but we have to push back to millions of years in the past. At that point, the entire climate and overall environment of the Earth was completely different. Many of those differences would prevent agriculture, compromise, sea trade, and totally change the regions of the world we could live in. Now does it mean all life is going to perish in smoke and fire? No, not at all. But would it likely mean that civilization as we currently understand it would be changed in every facet? Almost certainly.

I realize no one wanted to know any of this or likely had any patience for reading it, but this is why "global warming" causes me concern.

[Mach1]

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/img/photo/2021/12/photos-volcanoes-2021/v01_RC2S2M9J2ZBF-1/original.jpg



Meanwhile the climate cult.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51m08lc60YL.jpg

[steelreserve]

Ok. So, you got your usual nothing but your own POV. Not sure how science is a liberal source - but that is another discussion.

Again, I have tried to be transparent and open to discussion. I was and am genuinely interested in discussion - but you've consistently chosen to take the path of insults and closing off discussion. Again -- I get a chuckle over coffee or beer either way.

Ignore, distract, deflect. As usual, "my own POV" is actually just a bunch of readily available scientific information that is not really in question by anyone, and which, for some reason, you choose to remain willfully ignorant of. I guess it is an inconvenient truth if it threatens your slate of ideas.

OK, well if you insist on only doing half the equation, go ahead and be wrong, but then kindly shut up. As I said, you need your ideas spoon-fed to you, so even though the information is all quite simple, you will wait for someone else to do the rest of the equation for you. But only the right people, apparently; if I do it for you, you just get indignant. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water.

For the record, I would say that yes, most climate scientists in particular are probably not unbiased. There is not much reason, nor opportunity, to be biased in, say, particle physics. There is a clear right answer and a wrong answer, and even if you really really really want to be the one who discovers a new type of baryon or sub-quark, and even if everyone else is really really interested in it too, the proof is either there or it isn't, and half a proof doesn't count. In climate science, there are no wrong answers and, attention and praise is given out largely to whoever has the loudest and most dramatic predictions. For obvious reasons, it tends to attract lots of people with activist mentalities; people with preconceived ideas who think they're smarter than everyone else and they're saving the world - not great ingredients for doing honest unbiased science. They're not unlike hard-left journalists in that respect.

At any rate, what you end up with is a science unlike any other, which doesn't particularly seek definitive answers to questions, or solutions to problems (solutions already exist - see: nuclear power), and whose primary goal seems to be stirring up strong emotions. So that is why you get half an equation and a lot of shouting. Finish the fucking equation, idiot. It's not hard.

[willy]

I would say that is absolutely not the case. It is generally agreed upon that we have burned at least a third of the fossil fuels that will ever be recoverable on Earth. That's given us a temperature increase of what, 1 degree. Since the warming effectiveness of carbon dioxide increases in an inverse square relationship with the concentration, what do you get if you burn the other two-thirds? Another one degree. And then that's it, the most you can do. You can't make the planet uninhabitable and you can't make it like Venus, that much carbon-based fuel simply doesn't exist.

So sure, you can change things, no one is denying the basic principle at work. But can you change them enough to even make a tangible difference in your/most people's lives? I suppose that's open to debate, but my guess is probably not. Certainly you cannot do what the people who are most freaked out about the climate say.

Their argument is essentially saying what would happen if there was an infinite supply of carbon-based fuels which were consumed indefinitely. Of course, everyone knows that's not the case, if they take about 5 seconds to stop and think about it. But that does explain why climate change is always presented as an open-ended question with no definite parameters - because that's the only way you can get to those doomsday scenarios, by leaving out important parts of the equation.

"But can you change them enough to even make a tangible difference in your/most people's lives?............................... my guess is probably not"

It already has. Open your eyes and ears.

[Born2Steel]

I would say that is absolutely not the case. It is generally agreed upon that we have burned at least a third of the fossil fuels that will ever be recoverable on Earth. That's given us a temperature increase of what, 1 degree. Since the warming effectiveness of carbon dioxide increases in an inverse square relationship with the concentration, what do you get if you burn the other two-thirds? Another one degree. And then that's it, the most you can do. You can't make the planet uninhabitable and you can't make it like Venus, that much carbon-based fuel simply doesn't exist.

So sure, you can change things, no one is denying the basic principle at work. But can you change them enough to even make a tangible difference in your/most people's lives? I suppose that's open to debate, but my guess is probably not. Certainly you cannot do what the people who are most freaked out about the climate say.

Their argument is essentially saying what would happen if there was an infinite supply of carbon-based fuels which were consumed indefinitely. Of course, everyone knows that's not the case, if they take about 5 seconds to stop and think about it. But that does explain why climate change is always presented as an open-ended question with no definite parameters - because that's the only way you can get to those doomsday scenarios, by leaving out important parts of the equation.

Very nice bit of cherry picking my post. Create a debate. That seems to be the mindset anymore.

Yes, humans do have the capability to change the entire planet. Permanently for us. That is what a nuclear winter is. Most, if not all life extinct or at very minimum, changed.

Humans have this power.

[steelreserve]

Very nice bit of cherry picking my post. Create a debate. That seems to be the mindset anymore.

Yes, humans do have the capability to change the entire planet. Permanently for us. That is what a nuclear winter is. Most, if not all life extinct or at very minimum, changed.

Humans have this power.

You said nuclear winter could kill most life on Earth through the introduction of greenhouse gases. That is not what nuclear winter is. The nuclear winter hypothesis is that after a nuclear war hundreds of major cities would presumably burn uncontrollably, and the black soot from that would be forced into the stratosphere, where it would block sunlight and cause an excessive cooling effect of several degrees for several years. More recent research casts doubt on whether black soot would in fact reach the stratosphere or simply fall back to the ground in a matter of days or weeks. In that case, the chance of nuclear winter from a full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia is put in ranges from less than 1% to 10%. So that is far from certain either, although of course the alarmist models where it is a virtual certainty do also exist and get lots of attention.

As far as greenhouse gases go - no, you cannot exterminate most life on the planet that way either, which is what you originally said even though it's now apparent you were somewhat confused.

[Born2Steel]

You said nuclear winter could kill most life on Earth through the introduction of greenhouse gases. That is not what nuclear winter is. The nuclear winter hypothesis is that after a nuclear war hundreds of major cities would presumably burn uncontrollably, and the black soot from that would be forced into the stratosphere, where it would block sunlight and cause an excessive cooling effect of several degrees for several years. More recent research casts doubt on whether black soot would in fact reach the stratosphere or simply fall back to the ground in a matter of days or weeks. In that case, the chance of nuclear winter from a full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia is put in ranges from less than 1% to 10%. So that is far from certain either, although of course the alarmist models where it is a virtual certainty do also exist and get lots of attention.

As far as greenhouse gases go - no, you cannot exterminate most life on the planet that way either, which is what you originally said even though it's now apparent you were somewhat confused.

That is not what I said. And I explained it again in my last post. Whatever, it’s fine.

[Mojouw]

Ignore, distract, deflect. As usual, "my own POV" is actually just a bunch of readily available scientific information that is not really in question by anyone, and which, for some reason, you choose to remain willfully ignorant of. I guess it is an inconvenient truth if it threatens your slate of ideas.

OK, well if you insist on only doing half the equation, go ahead and be wrong, but then kindly shut up. As I said, you need your ideas spoon-fed to you, so even though the information is all quite simple, you will wait for someone else to do the rest of the equation for you. But only the right people, apparently; if I do it for you, you just get indignant. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water.

For the record, I would say that yes, most climate scientists in particular are probably not unbiased. There is not much reason, nor opportunity, to be biased in, say, particle physics. There is a clear right answer and a wrong answer, and even if you really really really want to be the one who discovers a new type of baryon or sub-quark, and even if everyone else is really really interested in it too, the proof is either there or it isn't, and half a proof doesn't count. In climate science, there are no wrong answers and, attention and praise is given out largely to whoever has the loudest and most dramatic predictions. For obvious reasons, it tends to attract lots of people with activist mentalities; people with preconceived ideas who think they're smarter than everyone else and they're saving the world - not great ingredients for doing honest unbiased science. They're not unlike hard-left journalists in that respect.

At any rate, what you end up with is a science unlike any other, which doesn't particularly seek definitive answers to questions, or solutions to problems (solutions already exist - see: nuclear power), and whose primary goal seems to be stirring up strong emotions. So that is why you get half an equation and a lot of shouting. Finish the fucking equation, idiot. It's not hard.

I have asked this question before. Maybe this time you will answer it instead of insulting everyone and anyone.

Why can I not find any other research that reaches the same conclusions that you do? Even the oil companies aren't saying what you are saying.

You are taking 1+1 and getting 3 while everyone else is getting 2. Notice, I have never said you were wrong or stupid -- just lacking in explanation about how you are reaching significantly different conclusions from the same data.

[steelreserve]

I have asked this question before. Maybe this time you will answer it instead of insulting everyone and anyone.

Why can I not find any other research that reaches the same conclusions that you do? Even the oil companies aren't saying what you are saying.

You are taking 1+1 and getting 3 while everyone else is getting 2. Notice, I have never said you were wrong or stupid -- just lacking in explanation about how you are reaching significantly different conclusions from the same data.

If you are too stupid or purposefully ignorant to find things and figure them out, I'm sorry, that's your problem and I can't help you.

It's not even that I'm taking 1+1 and getting 3. It's that I'm taking 1+1 and getting 2, and you are stuck at 1+1= and then saying anyone else who is not stuck like you is just making shit up. There is a reason for the insults and disrespect.

[willy]

If you are too stupid or purposefully ignorant to find things and figure them out, I'm sorry, that's your problem and I can't help you.


Yeah, sure.

[Steeler-in-west]

That is the general pattern.

Our current interglacial is "odd" for a few reasons. It is longer than most previous. I don't have the numbers in front of me and I have no desire to look them up, but I think it is generally believed that we should be heading toward a cooling period. But, that is an interesting assumption because our current period (the Holocene) has been an oddly stable one with what can only be viewed as a "climatic optimum" for human life as we know it (farming, cities, seafaring, etc). The Holocene has been far more stable in a far narrower band of conditions than all other interglacial periods. The other "odd" thing about the Holocene is the much debated "hockey stick graph" - where global temps skyrocket during the last 200 years due to fossil fuels.

The general theory is that temps slowly rose coming out of the last glacial period and reached an ideal level. Then from about 10K-5K years ago, they stayed there. This is when people really exploded in terms of development. We learned how to farm, live in cities, and populations took off. Then from 5K to about 1300 AD, temps began to gradually cool. This cooling was interrupted by an odd thing called the "Medieval Warm Period" (which is still not totally clear what happened and how global it was) where temps seemed to rise back up a bit, but still off the original Holocene optimum levels. Somewhere between 1300-1800 AD (the dating is broad because there are regional differences), we see evidence for the "Little Ice Age". During this time temps drop noticeably. Existing alpine glaciers grow, the Thames freezes solid, growing seasons shorten, stuff like that.

Then we hit the "industrial age". And the data plots out a dramatic spoke in global temps. All the stuff in the above paragraph is variations of roughly 0.5-0.8 degrees C above or below the Holocene baseline. Since about 1880, the temp has risen 1 degree C in a really short period of time. Depending on what projections you want to put your stock into, we are ticketed for another 2-3 degree C rise (some say even higher - but let's leave that aside). This is where I haven't looked at the data in a long time. But the current 2023 temp averages are within shouting distance of temp averages in previous interglacials that did not see the Earth erupt into a ball of fire or anything. I believe a 1-1.5 degree C rise over the pre 1800's temps is within previous interglacial precedents. It is the additional rise that gets everyone worried. Somewhere not very far above where we are now, is, to the best of our ability to measure, somewhat unprecedented territory for average temps across the globe.

The "somewhat" means that we can find broad comparable for a 2-3 degree C+ rise in temps, but we have to push back to millions of years in the past. At that point, the entire climate and overall environment of the Earth was completely different. Many of those differences would prevent agriculture, compromise, sea trade, and totally change the regions of the world we could live in. Now does it mean all life is going to perish in smoke and fire? No, not at all. But would it likely mean that civilization as we currently understand it would be changed in every facet? Almost certainly.

I realize no one wanted to know any of this or likely had any patience for reading it, but this is why "global warming" causes me concern.

Your making me do a little homework, as usual. The average intergalacial periods range from 10 to 25 thousand years, so 10 to 15 thousand years is not especially long. So when your looking at average temperatures you have to go back to the beginning of this intergalacial period and then compare average temperatures of this one to previous intergalacial periods. You don't have to push back millions of years, 1 million years would give you a good range of temperatures. Then you'll see that our present temperatures are not way above the average temps for previous intergalacial periods at all.

[Dwinsgames]

NOTHING you or I do will change the outcome (including throwing money at it) as the outcome has already been predetermined ...the end

[Mojouw]

Your making me do a little homework, as usual. The average intergalacial periods range from 10 to 25 thousand years, so 10 to 15 thousand years is not especially long. So when your looking at average temperatures you have to go back to the beginning of this intergalacial period and then compare average temperatures of this one to previous intergalacial periods. You don't have to push back millions of years, 1 million years would give you a good range of temperatures. Then you'll see that our present temperatures are not way above the average temps for previous intergalacial periods at all.

Agreed. We are at the kind of top our current interglacial and that aligns in a range with other interglacials. It is warm...and has some negative impacts but likely it could be sustained or, dare I say...weathered....

It is the predicted, modeled, or whatever the right term is additional 2-3 degree rise that forces one to go back millions of years to find a parallel. And that environment, as best we can tell, was not like our current one. And while we could be alive in that environment....perhaps not in the numbers we are now, not in the locations we are now, and not living as we do now. For instance, many researchers believe that the last time the Earth was that hot, agriculture was simply impossible. Just not able to grow wheat or whatever....what would we do if we couldn't farm?

I totally agree that global temperature averages are going to change during each interglacial no matter what people do or don't do. But that is typically within a degree or so one way or the other from the mean. 2, 3, more? That's us doing stuff that has a significant potential to break the system as we know it.

But again....just one guys take.

- - - Updated - - -


NOTHING you or I do will change the outcome (including throwing money at it) as the outcome has already been predetermined ...the end

Isn't there a parable or something about how a guy drowns and asks God why he didn't save him and God then details all the tools and opportunities he provided to save the guy?

So what if changing our behaviors are the provided tools to produce the predetermined outcome and we just sit back and ignore them?

[Dwinsgames]

Isn't there a parable or something about how a guy drowns and asks God why he didn't save him and God then details all the tools and opportunities he provided to save the guy?

So what if changing our behaviors are the provided tools to produce the predetermined outcome and we just sit back and ignore them?


https://www.facebook.com/reel/985216889194826


also ....

this would be the tool IMO

If my people which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways ; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin,and will heal their land. 2 chronicles 7:14

[Mojouw]

https://www.facebook.com/reel/985216889194826

Fixing or whatever the proper term for it is the ozone layer is an incredible success story not really a lie at all. it happened.

Also, ever been places where acid rain still falls? I have. it kinds sucks. the world is a bigger place than just our own backyards.

[Dwinsgames]

Fixing or whatever the proper term for it is the ozone layer is an incredible success story not really a lie at all. it happened.

Also, ever been places where acid rain still falls? I have. it kinds sucks. the world is a bigger place than just our own backyards.

or theirs

[steelreserve]

Isn't there a parable or something about how a guy drowns and asks God why he didn't save him and God then details all the tools and opportunities he provided to save the guy?

So what if changing our behaviors are the provided tools to produce the predetermined outcome and we just sit back and ignore them?

It is just unreal that you will say things like this and not even realize the incredible self-own.

As has been pointed out already, if climate change represents the existential threat you say it does, then the tools exist - today, with existing technology - to solve it right away with a very straightforward plan with a definite price tag. And still liberals bitch about it, and throw up their hands as if there is some huge unsolvable dilemma.

You think climate change is a giant looming crisis? Okay, then you should focus your efforts on loudly advocating for nuclear power, the end. Crisis over, debate over, no need for any more activism. You have this big giant problem, here's a very simple solution, you're welcome. Instead what do we get? Yes, but. Yes, but.

Liberals are like that. They don't want a solution, they want a crisis, so they can keep throwing a tantrum and preaching at others and imagining themselves as heroes doing this big important thing. They are too stupid to even realize that in half the catastrophes they drum up, all they need to do to solve it is get out of the fucking way and stop yelling at everything.

I swear if there was a liberal dog that was dying of starvation, you could throw a bag of food at its feet, and it would sit there and starve because it wanted this other specific food thrown at it this other specific way. You people are the dumbest motherfuckers on the entire planet.

[Mojouw]

It is just unreal that you will say things like this and not even realize the incredible self-own.

As has been pointed out already, if climate change represents the existential threat you say it does, then the tools exist - today, with existing technology - to solve it right away with a very straightforward plan with a definite price tag. And still liberals bitch about it, and throw up their hands as if there is some huge unsolvable dilemma.

You think climate change is a giant looming crisis? Okay, then you should focus your efforts on loudly advocating for nuclear power, the end. Crisis over, debate over, no need for any more activism. You have this big giant problem, here's a very simple solution, you're welcome. Instead what do we get? Yes, but. Yes, but.

Liberals are like that. They don't want a solution, they want a crisis, so they can keep throwing a tantrum and preaching at others and imagining themselves as heroes doing this big important thing. They are too stupid to even realize that in half the catastrophes they drum up, all they need to do to solve it is get out of the fucking way and stop yelling at everything.

I swear if there was a liberal dog that was dying of starvation, you could throw a bag of food at its feet, and it would sit there and starve because it wanted this other specific food thrown at it this other specific way. You people are the dumbest motherfuckers on the entire planet.

I'm a big fan of nuclear power and share your confusion over why it isn't the current solution until something else comes along. I mean I know why....but the reasons are dumb.

If I was in charge of things, I would've forced Yucca Mountain through a long time ago and started building nuclear power plants like a modern day TVA.

But don't let that ruin a really solid anti-liberal post. I really like the starving dog metaphor. That was some of your best work to date.

[steelreserve]

I'm a big fan of nuclear power and share your confusion over why it isn't the current solution until something else comes along. I mean I know why....but the reasons are dumb.

If I was in charge of things, I would've forced Yucca Mountain through a long time ago and started building nuclear power plants like a modern day TVA.

But don't let that ruin a really solid anti-liberal post. I really like the starving dog metaphor. That was some of your best work to date.

Well, last time nuclear power was brought up, the response from you was another yeah-but. OMG where will we put it all? Well, that also has a very simple solution and I'm glad you realize that, but let's not forget and try to pretend you came out swinging for the smart team on this one.

Since our remaining time here together is short, maybe it'd be better to focus on the important things. For instance, I don't know if I've ever seen anyone else who had such terrible ideas about such a wide range of topics, so consistently and over such a long duration. I mean, there's Tom/willy, but you do 10 times more work to end up in the same place. How do you do it? Like, it barely even matters what the subject is - politics, economics, climate, medicine, race, labor relations, whatever - you are just a walking L who ends up at the dumbest possible conclusion almost every single time. The questions that have really been nagging me this whole time are like - how does anyone get like that? Or, how is it possible to be like that and get out of bed without the urge to put a pistol in your mouth? I don't know how you do it, but anyway, thanks for your input.

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/329107727_1544236956050547_4543327543391919272_n.j pg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=fD-8fSSuNVsAX82KZ_l&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfAp0SWMX0h0r0PKI79Y2RdgZQhCMBm61rq9w8TOXel6 QA&oe=64EDA586

[willy]

[/QUOTE] steelreserve (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/member.php/50-steelreserve) ...............................

.............................Like, it barely even matters what the subject is - politics, economics, climate, medicine, race, labor relations, whatever - you are just a walking L who ends up at the dumbest possible conclusion almost every single time. The questions that have really been nagging me this whole time are like - how does anyone get like that? Or, how is it possible to be like that and get out of bed without the urge to put a pistol in your mouth? I don't know how you do it, but anyway, thanks for your input.[/QUOTE]

^^^ This from one of the Trump really won in 2020 crowd. Ha ha, you can't make this shit up.

[Mojouw]

Well, last time nuclear power was brought up, the response from you was another yeah-but. OMG where will we put it all? Well, that also has a very simple solution and I'm glad you realize that, but let's not forget and try to pretend you came out swinging for the smart team on this one.

Since our remaining time here together is short, maybe it'd be better to focus on the important things. For instance, I don't know if I've ever seen anyone else who had such terrible ideas about such a wide range of topics, so consistently and over such a long duration. I mean, there's Tom/willy, but you do 10 times more work to end up in the same place. How do you do it? Like, it barely even matters what the subject is - politics, economics, climate, medicine, race, labor relations, whatever - you are just a walking L who ends up at the dumbest possible conclusion almost every single time. The questions that have really been nagging me this whole time are like - how does anyone get like that? Or, how is it possible to be like that and get out of bed without the urge to put a pistol in your mouth? I don't know how you do it, but anyway, thanks for your input.

Oh, no! Hoisted on my own petard! Whatever shall I do?

Despite the potential for Yucca Mountain as a solution, it has comically failed for how many decades, Congresses, Administrations, and Governships? I don't actually know, but I know it is more than 1 of each.

No governmental agency has ever been able to openly dispose of nuclear waste with public knowledge. They're still finding stuff that was clandestinely buried from the Manhattan project.

So outside of Imperial fiat...you will almost certainly never get nuclear waste disposed of with public consent in the US. So, despite the usefulness of the idea...it just isn't possible.

How can I put a pistol in my mouth when the Liberals took all the guns.....duh! I mean that is why the American liberal movement is so all in on gun control and limiting private ownership. If we didn't out entire movement would kill themselves.

[steelreserve]

Oh, no! Hoisted on my own petard! Whatever shall I do?

Despite the potential for Yucca Mountain as a solution, it has comically failed for how many decades, Congresses, Administrations, and Governships? I don't actually know, but I know it is more than 1 of each.

No governmental agency has ever been able to openly dispose of nuclear waste with public knowledge. They're still finding stuff that was clandestinely buried from the Manhattan project.

So outside of Imperial fiat...you will almost certainly never get nuclear waste disposed of with public consent in the US. So, despite the usefulness of the idea...it just isn't possible.

How can I put a pistol in my mouth when the Liberals took all the guns.....duh! I mean that is why the American liberal movement is so all in on gun control and limiting private ownership. If we didn't out entire movement would kill themselves.

Well, if climate change is literally the most important thing in the world to these people, then they would put all the nuclear waste in the desert and steamroll all opposition. I mean, civilization is at stake and they're just going to cave because some people complained? Seems like it's not actually that important to them then.

But back up first - we're not even at the point of arguing over a waste dump, because most liberals seem to be vigorously advocating against the overall principle of nuclear power in general. Here in California - where electricity costs triple the national average thanks to clean energy mandates and they can't even keep the power on - they decided to shut down all the nuclear plants because they are too scary or something. Of course these same people, for whom climate change is literally the most important thing in the world, are also ripping out existing hydroelectric dams because of the impact on salmon, and complaining about commercial-scale wind and concentrated solar power plants because the birds fly into them.

The inescapable conclusion from this is that we are not exactly dealing with the smartest sons of bitches in the world here, and the only constant theme is complain, complain, complain.

And yet you wonder how I come to different conclusions from these people, and say that as if it's a bad thing?

[Steeldude]

The climate hoax is a money scam. No sane/logical individual buys into the hoax.

[steelreserve]

The climate hoax is a money scam. No sane/logical individual buys into the hoax.

How many trillions of dollars have disappeared into make-work projects, consulting costs, and other money pits?

"Oh no! We're facing the worst crisis ever and we're literally all going to die if we don't solve it!"

"OK, here's the answer practically staring you in the face using existing technology."

"No! I didn't mean solve it that way! I demand you do all this other junk instead that's decades away from being ready and requires massive expenditures and large-scale social changes!"

[Steeldude]

How many trillions of dollars have disappeared into make-work projects, consulting costs, and other money pits?

"Oh no! We're facing the worst crisis ever and we're literally all going to die if we don't solve it!"

"OK, here's the answer practically staring you in the face using existing technology."

"No! I didn't mean solve it that way! I demand you do all this other junk instead that's decades away from being ready and requires massive expenditures and large-scale social changes!"

They can't fix the homeless problem in the US, but can change the climate of planet Earth. 😂

[Mojouw]

Y'all must've been really big fans of leaded gasoline.

[steelreserve]

Y'all must've been really big fans of leaded gasoline.

This coming from the guy who is a big fan of everything that is poisonous to literally every aspect of society. Sick burn, dude.

[willy]

What climate change?

"More rain fell in one day then over the past 40 years."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I8_RTJ1mWA

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/91592777_3206122039399262_8432952412049768448_n.jp g?stp=dst-jpg_s1080x2048&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=JoQHTQE3C3QAX84m3JP&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfBzVPanFLETwoCXZo8qgkRJKSneFnaCNBzLw2RnnpgD ww&oe=6528396D

[silver & black]

What climate change?

"More rain fell in one day then over the past 40 years."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I8_RTJ1mWA

So what? Strange weather happens frequently in different places. It doesn't mean it's climate change, altough, climate change is happening... just not for the reason/s you libbies want everyone to believe.

[Steeldude]

Climate change is always happening. There is nothing humans can do about it. I don't see how wasting tax payer money on a fantasy helps.

[steelreserve]

Climate change is always happening. There is nothing humans can do about it. I don't see how wasting tax payer money on a fantasy helps.

The point is not to help YOU, silly.

[willy]

Is the current climate change cycle attributable to human activity? Unequivocally yes.


The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.

Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit (http://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/) that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2679/CO2_graph.jpeg (https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2679/CO2_graph.jpeg)This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (http://icecores.org/about-ice-cores) (external site).

The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia.1 (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#footnote_1) It is undeniable that human activities have produced the atmospheric gases that have trapped more of the Sun’s energy in the Earth system. This extra energy has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, and widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.
Do scientists agree on climate change?



Earth-orbiting satellites and new technologies have helped scientists see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate all over the world. These data, collected over many years, reveal the signs and patterns of a changing climate.
Scientists demonstrated the heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases in the mid-19th century.2 (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#footnote_2) Many of the science instruments NASA uses to study our climate focus on how these gases affect the movement of infrared radiation (https://climate.nasa.gov/glossary/?alpha=A-Z:title&ss_id=17) through the atmosphere. From the measured impacts of increases in these gases, there is no question that increased greenhouse gas levels warm Earth in response.

"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal."




https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=Do%20scientists%20agree%20on%20climate,gl obal%20warming%20and%20climate%20change.

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/376755140_7016715158362985_1500701834468814977_n.j pg?_nc_cat=106&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=4c1e7d&_nc_ohc=G4RVph686JQAX9BYxFB&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfChMuIY7rOtoMJv4iAwdWRh_VonPRAdqGMAZDAr2IfX tA&oe=65079B71

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/376799774_10227240436450241_6353544814349579965_n. jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=4c1e7d&_nc_ohc=CiU9fVLNA0QAX8TVFqs&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfDZN9tw0yvitdnWz2NQfeBS9wzApEXkKcfnWTEqu8Rm YQ&oe=6518D72F

[Orion]

Joe Biden’s Words Come Back to Haunt Him as Wyoming Town’s Entire Electric Bus Fleet Breaks Down
Jackson, Wyoming – Joe Biden boasted two years ago that the CEO of a major electric bus manufacturer was making him “look good” and federal dollars poured into the company. Now those words have come back to haunt him as an entire town’s electric bus fleet backed by the company broke down.
The Cowboy State Daily reported (https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/26/jackson-buys-8-electric-buses-for-transit-system-but-none-are-working/) Tuesday that Teton County and the town of Jackson wanted a low-emission transit system for the county. The Southern Teton Area Rapid Transit (START) system, a joint operation between Jackson and Teton County, had bought eight electric buses to complement its fleet of 31.
But the entire bus fleet broke down so the town’s transit system is now solely relying on its diesel fleet. The last of the electric buses went out of service two months ago and some of the broken buses have been awaiting parts for months.



Cristina Laila previously reported (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/electric-bus-company-tied-energy-secretary-jennifer-granholm/) the electric bus manufacturer that supplied START, California-based Proterra, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last month. Proterra enjoyed large financial support from American taxpayers courtesy of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was signed into law back in 2021. Laila also notes (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/electric-bus-company-tied-energy-secretary-jennifer-granholm/) that dim-witted Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was deeply invested in the company.

[steelreserve]

Joe Biden’s Words Come Back to Haunt Him as Wyoming Town’s Entire Electric Bus Fleet Breaks Down
Jackson, Wyoming – Joe Biden boasted two years ago that the CEO of a major electric bus manufacturer was making him “look good” and federal dollars poured into the company. Now those words have come back to haunt him as an entire town’s electric bus fleet backed by the company broke down.
The Cowboy State Daily reported (https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/26/jackson-buys-8-electric-buses-for-transit-system-but-none-are-working/) Tuesday that Teton County and the town of Jackson wanted a low-emission transit system for the county. The Southern Teton Area Rapid Transit (START) system, a joint operation between Jackson and Teton County, had bought eight electric buses to complement its fleet of 31.
But the entire bus fleet broke down so the town’s transit system is now solely relying on its diesel fleet. The last of the electric buses went out of service two months ago and some of the broken buses have been awaiting parts for months.



Cristina Laila previously reported (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/electric-bus-company-tied-energy-secretary-jennifer-granholm/) the electric bus manufacturer that supplied START, California-based Proterra, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last month. Proterra enjoyed large financial support from American taxpayers courtesy of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which was signed into law back in 2021. Laila also notes (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/electric-bus-company-tied-energy-secretary-jennifer-granholm/) that dim-witted Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm was deeply invested in the company.

Don't worry, I'm sure they can make up for it by banning straws.

[ALLD]

It's a Ponzi scheme whereas a few elites have created a new currency out of thin air to regulate the masses and skim their $ off the top.

[steelreserve]

It's a Ponzi scheme whereas a few elites have created a new currency out of thin air to regulate the masses and skim their $ off the top.

Nonsense, I just visited the carbon credit factory last week and there were nothing but good hardworking Americans putting in an honest day's work.

[willy]

It's a Ponzi scheme whereas a few elites have created a new currency out of thin air to regulate the masses and skim their $ off the top.
.
No no, it's part of The Cloward Piven Strategy.


https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/laughing-giraffe-jim-and-emily-bush.jpg

[silver & black]

.
No no, it's part of The Cloward Piven Strategy.


https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/laughing-giraffe-jim-and-emily-bush.jpg

You're coming around. Good for you!

[Mach1]

.
No no, it's part of The Cloward Piven Strategy.




https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/380219126_1815055722276576_5111104198282487864_n.j pg?_nc_cat=105&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=4c1e7d&_nc_ohc=zyvNV_J7AW8AX9d_8GR&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfARgRE0KhF0dDvdAVwS7OMEZyp8xHq2X6XbWSTilL0V kA&oe=651C023A

[Orion]

this is how fucking stupid democrats are...

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/149/135/932/original/9a3bd1dbb6cd09d9.png
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/149/154/629/original/4e011e5c44d4c563.jpeg

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/149/143/808/original/16930d4ab8d4136b.jpeg

[Orion]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/149/154/129/original/082cf2dc59268451.jpeg

[Orion]

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/149/151/614/original/b4954eb9af258968.png

- - - Updated - - -

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=568,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/149/157/405/original/936e36e553038e3f.jpeg

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/380938174_7062739973760503_1814864701969114941_n.j pg?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=4c1e7d&_nc_ohc=WhzX5k87JzQAX99MQ1b&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfDT4Ry4kIVwNzebWy-bAx1kszCIaHc_e3s_p1c-hpDGNg&oe=651E0016

[willy]

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pamela-Faber-2/publication/314439209/figure/fig5/AS:514815874605065@1499753077791/Sea-bird-covered-with-black-oil.png

[Orion]

SoCal Doctor Charged With Stealing $150 Million From Federal COVID Program (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/10/socal-doctor-charged-stealing-150-million-federal-covid/)
oops....looks like someone didnt have their congressional license to steal. either that or they failed to pay tribute to the people who made it possible for the con to happen.

[willy]

2023 on track to become warmest year on record



2023 on track to become warmest year on record: Copernicus report

ABC News (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/safari-reader://abcnews.go.com/)
https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/787d9b72-c1ed-4214-a488-7e3a87413cde/global-warming-london-heat-gty-moe-012-231004_1696454624497_hpMain_16x9.jpg?w=992
The year 2023 is already on track to be the warmest year on record, according to Copernicus, Europe’s climate change service.

The month of September saw several unprecedented temperature anomalies around the world, following the hottest summer ever recorded, according to the monthly climate report released by Copernicus (https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/?utm_source=press&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=CBseptember23) on Wednesday, which analyzes billions of measurements from satellites, ships, aircraft and weather stations around the world to highlight changes observed in global surface air temperature, sea ice cover and hydrological variables.

Several records were broken "by an extraordinary amount" in September due to never-before-seen high temperatures for that time of year, Samantha Burgess, deputy director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, said in a statement. The month as a whole was around 1.75 degrees Celsius (3.2 Fahrenheit) warmer than the September average for 1850 to 1900, the preindustrial reference period, according to the report.
Now, 2023 is expected to round out the year as the warmest on record globally -- clocking in at about 1.4 C above pre-industrial levels, Burgess said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/2023-track-become-warmest-year-record-copernicus-report/story?id=103730133#:~:text=Now%2C%202023%20is%20ex pected%20to,%2Dindustrial%20levels%2C%20Burgess%20 said.

[silver & black]

Good. I hate cold weather.

[willy]

Good. I hate cold weather.

Good? Not really.


How Extreme Heat Affects Workers and the Economy

“It drains your brain. It slows your cognitive function. You’re overwhelmed.”

July 20, 2023
You’re reading the Climate Forward newsletter, for Times subscribers only. News and insights for a warming world.






https://static01.nyt.com/images/2023/07/20/multimedia/20cli-newsletter-ressler-fqlv/20cli-newsletter-ressler-fqlv-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale
Linda Ressler before her shift at the Phoenix airport.Ash Ponders for The New York Times

Linda Ressler is an airplane cabin cleaner at the airport in Phoenix, where the temperature has reached or surpassed 110 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 days in a row (https://twitter.com/NWSPhoenix/status/1681729329112428544) and counting.

Ressler, 57, works the overnight shift inside planes where the air conditioning is off and nighttime temperatures regularly approach 100 degrees. This week, as she was wiping down a tray table, she briefly lost consciousness from the heat.

“It drains your brain,” she said. “It slows your cognitive function. You’re overwhelmed by the heat.”

Ressler is just one of millions of workers around the world struggling under extreme temperatures. Heat waves are gripping three continents (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/world/extreme-heat-wave-us-europe-asia.html) right now, just after Earth recorded what scientists said were likely its hottest days in modern history (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/06/climate/climate-change-record-heat.html).

At least two workers collapsed and died (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/world/europe/heat-workers-europe-italy.html) last week in Italy, which is at the epicenter of Europe’s searing heat wave. “Most of the time, you have headaches because of the heat,” Naveed Khan, a food delivery cyclist in Milan, told my colleague Emma Bubola. “If you have a proper job, you can take a break in the heat. If I take a break, what will they eat?”

In India, workers in the informal economy are suffering under the unrelenting sun. “This past month, I have had either fever or body ache every other day,” a food delivery driver in Delhi told Rest of World (https://restofworld.org/2023/delivery-drivers-struggle-india-unpredictable-summer-weather/), an independent news site.

And in Dubai, which will host the United Nations climate change conference this year, workers are struggling to cope with furnace-like conditions. “Between noon and 3 p.m. or 3:30 p.m., we simply cannot work,” Issam Genedi, who works in an outdoor car park, told Voice of America (https://www.voanews.com/a/we-cannot-work-why-gulf-summer-feels-even-hotter-than-usual-/7179395.html).

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/20/climate/how-extreme-heat-affects-workers-and-the-economy.html#:~:text=Heat's%20chilling%20effects%2 0on%20the%20economy&text=Over%20the%20long%20term,%20the,increasing%20 mortality,%20among%20other%20impacts.

[Mach1]

https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1239377112/photo/man-getting-sunburnt-during-summer-2020.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=jA87YQefMB7lb10vIuJVSXGTUUYmGCvfI1ZImapkNAA=

[cubanstogie]

A little global warming for you:



https://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/weather-connection/earths-hottest-day-ever-was-recorded-on-july-3-2023/3289861/#:~:text=NBC%205%20Meteorologist%20Samantha%20Davi es,temperature%20reached%2062.62%20degrees%20Fahre nheit.
In case you forgot gramps.

- - - Updated - - -

Nice “trend” . Twice in seven years

[Penglose]

A little global warming for you:



https://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/weather-connection/earths-hottest-day-ever-was-recorded-on-july-3-2023/3289861/#:~:text=NBC%205%20Meteorologist%20Samantha%20Davi es,temperature%20reached%2062.62%20degrees%20Fahre nheit.

I'd call that a hot day. What was the hottest day before that week? Another dumb question for you. Since they've only kept records for the last couple hundred years, how do they know this? It does make a good sound bite for morons.

[Dwinsgames]

7 of the warmest days on Christmas in history for Pittsburgh were before mass use of the internal combustion engine 1875 1877 1888 1889 1891 1893 1895... how is that even possible to hear many of you talk ....

https://scontent.fpit1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/414164815_702600038646160_4034108210665507045_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg_p960x960&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=Ob-iyeivCpsAX8G2-1c&_nc_ht=scontent.fpit1-1.fna&oh=00_AfB4BxwjMc_ujQEQN8GRbPK3e40JctIUrwd5q9rQWeRi jA&oe=65909102

[Mach1]

7 of the warmest days on Christmas in history for Pittsburgh were before mass use of the internal combustion engine 1875 1877 1888 1889 1891 1893 1895... how is that even possible to hear many of you talk ....


Cow farts

[Rocky Mtn.]

Cow farts
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Penglose]

A little global warming for you:



https://www.nbcdfw.com/weather/weather-connection/earths-hottest-day-ever-was-recorded-on-july-3-2023/3289861/#:~:text=NBC%205%20Meteorologist%20Samantha%20Davi es,temperature%20reached%2062.62%20degrees%20Fahre nheit.

So says the agency that's been around a whole 53 years.

[Dwinsgames]

https://scontent.fpit1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/414164815_702600038646160_4034108210665507045_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=JJggoDbTJoIAX9z3369&_nc_ht=scontent.fpit1-1.fna&oh=00_AfB0C9s9xOvWDmdl8rXElaR_G195vHpYa2eI-0NpSuUxaA&oe=659A7442

[Steeldude]

7 of the warmest days on Christmas in history for Pittsburgh were before mass use of the internal combustion engine 1875 1877 1888 1889 1891 1893 1895... how is that even possible to hear many of you talk ....

https://scontent.fpit1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/414164815_702600038646160_4034108210665507045_n.jp g?stp=cp6_dst-jpg_p960x960&_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=Ob-iyeivCpsAX8G2-1c&_nc_ht=scontent.fpit1-1.fna&oh=00_AfB4BxwjMc_ujQEQN8GRbPK3e40JctIUrwd5q9rQWeRi jA&oe=65909102

Candles?:eyebrows:

[Mach1]

https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/426112895_353387664194504_5516982818452103761_n.jp g?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=c42490&_nc_ohc=Nu5oKhA18s4AX_V7gPR&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=00_AfBhF2C39b1nJ4ep0_XZlmiOLNHf0arA8l2rhXP71ZYn Fg&oe=65C92229

[Penglose]

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2: