It should be really difficult to call this global warming nonsense science. Then again, the promoters of global warming haven't had any difficulty with bald faced lies to date.
Adjusted for US population, CO2 emissions per capita were the lowest last year since 1959, almost 60 years ago.
Seems like CAFE standards were initiated, oh about 1973...right there at the peak. So it seems to me like this graph is supporting nothing but the idea that having environment standards aimed at reducing CO2 is doing precisely what it was designed to do.
Good. Let's have more of this. More research and documentation and analysis. Less screaming "aint so" and more data supporting "ain't so". Especially since the "ain't so" crowd now has control of the WH, Senate and House. Get the research rolling. Maybe it is all normal cycle stuff. Maybe it is overwhelmingly driven by solar activity. Maybe the human component is so insignificant that we shouldn't worry about it. Now is the time to prove it. They have the reins, the GOP should find all the scientist that disagree and promote the work of the scientist that doubt CC/GW. Give them center stage in the debate and let's see if their work stands up to the scrutiny.
Trump administration already started: https://www.google.com/amp/thehill....h-initiative-to-challenge-climate-science?amp
outstanding. This is what needs to happen. being a former military dude, I'm particularly fond of the red team/blue team approach. I would caveat my approval with this...The teams need to be actual scientist and not merely industry experts. I don't want to see a bunch of ex-Chevron employees sitting on the team just trying to poke holes in the CC science. I don't want to hear a bunch of "your data isn't 100% conclusive and provable." Most complex decisions require judgment based on incomplete data sets. I want to see data from the anti-CC side that shows that it is not man-made, not just articles highlighting all the possible ways the CC data could be weak.
I feel pretty sure this is not "caused by man" - but maybe one or two of you think it is? "NASA Has More Evidence Volcanic Activity Is Heating Up Antarctica’s Ice Sheet " http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/07/n...-antarcticas-ice-sheet/?utm_source=site-share
I think most warming is NOT based on humans. That said, some may be and what is there can inhibit the organism that is "mother earth" to operate as she designed it. A few degrees of sea temp here, a few inches of sea level there and all of the sudden Miami is building dykes, and not the good kind.
I think there are a lot of factors to CO2 CC/GW but I do think humans are that critical last 5% that tips the balance. It's like when my buddies used to play a "funny" trick while I was doing a bench press. As long as the bar was in balance things were groovy but when they added that extra 10lb to the bar, it threw it all out of whack.
A gas that is 0.04% of the atmosphere by mass is causing a 1% change in global temperature? That doesn't sound right to me. And really we are saying humans have caused CO2 to increase 0.01% from 0.03%. I have seen nothing that would be to believe that CO2 has multiplier effect of 100 times its mass.
I disagree. I think that's exactly how it works. It is an ecosystem that ebbs and flows but on the whole is has an average that keeps it in balance. When you add too much to one side of the equation, it is out of balance and things get effected. Does it mean that we have a crazy doomsday scenario like the movies indicate, probably not. But does it mean that we have rising sea levels and increased incidence of large storms and flooding...I think it does.
your body is about 65% water. so how is it that drinking a little sea water can kill you? Sea water only has about 35 grams of salt, so you're only adding 35 grams of salt (per liter) to roughly 34 litres of water and yet, without flushing that amount out of your system it is enough make you sick as a dog and perhaps even kill you. How is it that such an itty bitty amount of salt can have such a devastating impact on our body? Its something that is required for goodness sakes, so how can having just a smidge more do so much harm?
Using your example. Does drinking 1 liter of water kill you without losing any of the water previously in your body? Or is the problem drinking sea water kills you over time as you sweat out the "fresh" water and replace it with sea water, meaning multiple liters. Plus 1/35 = 3%. I am talking 0.01%. So you are talking about something 300 times the proportion that I am talking about even granting your worst case scenario.
Your last sentence regarding storms and flooding - there is absolutely no evidence that this is happening. Flooding due to land subsidence is not due global warming. Warmists like to conflate the two. I dare you to find a chart that shows evidence of larger storms and more flooding. It does not exist. Nothing more than myth. Also, sea levels have been rising since end of Little Ice Age. There has been no acceleration - just a gentle upward slope.
Unfortunately, this type of thinking is what passes for "syence" these days. Movies? Really? You do realize that movies are based on fictional stories. So-called documentaries put out by the great scientist Al Gore Jr. (he did actually pass college kemistry) or Michael "Refrigerator" Moore may not be based on fact either.
This is a pretty good analysis for a second grader who has heard her teacher cry hysterically about evil republicans causing global warming.
I'm sorry about that. I get really pissed off about all of the ignorance out there when the ignorance is passed around by some who know better. Let me explain why your analogy is not correct. The basis of the anthropogenic or man-made global warming theory is that carbon based, so-called greenhouse gases absorb radiant heat better than non greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This is a true statement. When designing a gas-fired heater, the stack gas may have a few percent more CO2 than the atmosphere and will carry significant heat out of the stack. If you assume the stack gas is 0.03% CO2 instead of 3% CO2, your calculations will predict a noticeably lower stack temperature than reality. If your stack gas in reality is 0.04% CO2 instead of 0.03%, there will be a difference in temperature, but it will be so small that you will not be able to measure the difference. This has been confirmed by scientific theory as well as thousands or millions of actual measurements. So, the same difference in global atmospheric CO2 concentration, which has risen from 0.03% of the atmosphere to 0.04% of the atmosphere cannot logically be responsible for a large and growing increase in global temperature. Another way to think of it is that the 0.01% of the molecules that are now CO2 instead of O2 (I know it's not a 1 for 1 replacement, but it is close enough) will absorb slightly more radiant heat. In order for temperature increase to be measurable, it must transmit that heat to the other 99.99% of the atmosphere. So the heat absorbed will be greatly diluted. It's like pissing in a very large Olympic sized swimming pool. The poor kids on the other side of the pool won't feel a difference in temperature even though your piss is much hotter than the rest of the water. In fact, the heat you feel on your leg will be gone as soon as you stop peeing. You shouldn't do this. It's gross. At least make sure you are well hydrated to ensure no one sees yellow pee in the pool. Your analogy with sea water is flawed. First of all, your math is wrong. The 35 g per liter of salt in sea water is a salinity of 3.5%. As I have said above, an increase of 3% CO2 would have a very noticeable effect on global temperature. If there were only 0.035% salinity in sea water, you could probably drink it and be ok. Also, the reason sea water can kill you is that it dehydrates your cells by pulling water out of them. This kills cells. Your analogy implies that the sea water changes your personal salinity. That is incorrect.
6 weeks to go for this prediction James Hansen, NASA climate expert, predicted that by 2018 the Arctic would be ice-free in summer, and Lower Manhattan would be underwater. Democrats call him a "climate prophet."
Very bold of you to mock the climate prophet. Not worried about a famous Okie earthqake in your future?
