Global Warming: CA Officials Tell Skiers to Stay Home, Too Much Snow

submitted by useless_aether from breitbart.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]useless_aether[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

i think all people agree in general, that the climate is changing, all we need to do is remember the historical records, like how tom pointed out. sahara was the breadbasket of the ancients, etc.

the way i see it is that the disagreement is about the anthropogenic global warming, that is, the push of the elites behind the united nations for carbon taxes. that is pure fantasy and not rooted in science as the many scandals proved so far. that push started out by them propagandazing 'global warming' and when that didnt stick (as the result of the scandals i mentioned) they changed it to climate change. so they are moving the goalposts, and also leave all options open for jjustifying taxes while doing so.

i think its obvious that the main driver of the climate is the sun, and its cycles, next in significance is the earths hydrosphere including the atmospheric water vapour. these account for something like 97% of the changes. the remaining 3% is a combinatin of other factors of which co2 is only one and the co2 made by nature (volcanoes alone) is again, two orders of magnitude larger than human emissions and in total maybe even three or four orders of magnitude.

the cherry on the top is the balancing reaction of the photosynthesizing flora of the planet to elevated co2 levels, they respond to it by increasing biomass, since as we all know it co2 is food for the plants. so they just gobble up the excess as it is becoming available.

the use og 'global warming' in the title is still proper, since the powers that shouldnt be want to tax carbon, that is co2 emissions, saying it is a greenhouse gas causing global warming. so the ulterior motive for taxation is still the global warming, but they dont dear using that phrase in public propaganda anymore because it backfired at them previously.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i think its obvious that the main driver of the climate is the sun, and its cycles,

That's an 11-year periodic fluctuation, so it can't be the cause of a decades-long trend.

next in significance is the earths hydrosphere including the atmospheric water vapour

Yes. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, and one of the major concerns is that it'll cause a cascading effect that'll make the planet a few degrees warmer if we don't act quickly.

these account for something like 97% of the changes.

Making up numbers, I see. The real numbers, please.

the remaining 3% is a combinatin of other factors of which co2 is only one

Yes. Methane is another, and so is ozone, and so are oxides of nitrogen. I'd group water vapour under this group too, personally, but it's understandable if you've got reasons for not.

The volumes of these need to be multiplied by their "greenhouseness", though that's an incredibly simplified model and in fact the number of factors you'd need to take into consideration (which wavelengths they're opaque to, the temperatures of currents in the air, blackbody radiation, distributions in different elevations of the atmosphere, etc.) is more than a simple mathematical model would be able to accurately handle; you'd need to simulate.

and the co2 made by nature (volcanoes alone) is again, two orders of magnitude larger than human emissions and in total maybe even three or four orders of magnitude.

As I've said before, this is entirely irrelevant. I'll quote my previous comment here:

The important figures are:

  • The difference (not ratio) between the produced and absorbed quantities of greenhouse gases.
  • The proportion of the atmosphere containing the gases.

The first is, for want of a better word, the deficit. The second is, seriously for want of a better word, the debt (though the "zero" point is not "no greenhouse gases"). It doesn't matter how much we produce, how much nature produces, how much volcanoes emit… What matters is how much is being added every year, and the difference between the level that it's at and the level that it should be; we should be paying attention to the size of those numbers to determine the significance of this issue.

Think – are you wrong? There are a lot of clever people who don't stand to gain anything (except species survival) from this issue; it's possible that you might be the wrong one in this situation. Don't mindlessly believe me, but be open to considering that. It's really hard, and something that I often don't do, but at time of writing I promise I'm considering everything you're saying as if it's written by somebody I trust and respect.

the cherry on the top is the balancing reaction of the photosynthesizing flora of the planet to elevated co2 levels, they respond to it by increasing biomass, since as we all know it co2 is food for the plants. so they just gobble up the excess as it is becoming available.

Good! This argument is extremely strong! Unfortunately, we're significantly reducing the biomass of the photosynthesisers on the planet, including in the ocean (which is responsible for the majority of CO2 reduction / O2 production), via deforestation and ocean acidification. Otherwise, you'd be completely right.

Assume for a moment that my argument holds water. Blindly trust it for a few minutes. Think of what that would imply. Feel that rising sense of panic as you think through the implications. Count to 100. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 37. 38. 39. 40. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 56. 53. 54. 55. 52. 57. 58. 59. 60. 70. 80. 61. 62. 63. 74. 75. 76. 87. 88. 89. 81. 82. 83. 64. 65. 66. 77. 78. 79. 71. 72. 73. 84. 85. 86. 67. 68. 69. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. Now snap back to your previous set of beliefs. It's OK; that's not going to happen because climate change is probably a hoax… right?

the use og 'global warming' in the title is still proper, since the powers that shouldnt be want to tax carbon, that is co2 emissions, saying it is a greenhouse gas causing global warming. so the ulterior motive for taxation is still the global warming, but they dont dear using that phrase in public propaganda anymore because it backfired at them previously.

I'll ignore this argument because it's completely and utterly irrelevant. If climate change is occurring, I want to believe that climate change is occurring. If climate change is not occurring, I want to believe that climate change is not occurring.

Assuming that climate change is not occurring, you're right. But if climate change is occurring, then your strategy will kill us all.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.