Here’s a projected picture for the Midwest in February ......normal high is 36 F degrees...we are projected to be a cumulative 266 degrees or almost 9.5 degrees a day below normal. Anybody that seriously believes there is ‘run away’ warming needs their head read.
Yes I know the arguments about the weather today. But this is the weather for a month over the Central USA.
And Lefties make claims all the time....like the supposed run away heat in Oz last year. Turnaround is fair play.
Tell your Left Wing mates to stop talking about every snow storm, forest fire, ice berg or hurricane in global warming terms .....and then lecture me on citing a specific example.
Of course I fully anticipated this as you can see in my post.
As for the Midwest, perhaps this will help:
821,000 square milesThe Midwest's roughly 821,000 square miles make it about twice the size of France, the country from which the US bought most of it. The region is pretty close in size to Mexico, which is just under 800,000 square miles......Big enough to be very relevant. Total global landmass is 57 million square miles, so statistically we are taking a sample equal to 1.4% of the earth’s landmass.No not every snow storm, forest fire, ice berg or hurricane can be directly attributed to climate change, but what proponents of climate change are saying is that frequency of these extreme weather events will increase as a result of climate change.
Funny thing is I google searched the size of the midwest and found the exact same result you posted up.
But let me clarify it for you, the worlds total landmass also does not equal the globe. Europe just makes up 2% of the worlds sufrace area and even an area twice the size of France is still less than 1% of the world's total surface area.
We have temperature readings from all over the world including from the sea's. These readings show the global temperatures are increasing. And I don't want to hear that these temperatures readings are wrong, if the midwest can accurately measure temperatures the rest of the world can too. You already plugged the idea the idea before that global temperatures haven't increased much since 1850 happy to use old temperature records from over 170 years ago but somehow with all the advances in climatology since then the modern temperature readings are wrong.
And your biases keep tripping you up. You have gone so far down the path of climate change denial, where you actually go out of your way on this forum to promote it, that no matter how overwhelming the evidence is presented in front of you, your ego just won't allow you to admit you're wrong. To you its all about winning an argument as opposed to being on the right side of an argument.
Star
The earth heating up is NOT proof of "man-made climate change".
As far as proof, you have presented very little. Scientists say isn't proof of anything.
So here's your chance. Provide us with irrefutable proof that man-made climate change is real and demonstrate how much of the heating up is caused by us pesky humans.
My guess is that your answer will include statements regarding scientific consensus, mounting undeniable proof, clear as day evidence....but not actual evidence will make its way to this thread.
We should have been cooked already if the CO2 angle was that simple.
The earth heating up is NOT proof of "man-made climate change".
I didn't say it was. Merely pointing out if where talking about global warming, you look at global temperatures over prolonged periods of time not just temperatures in a limited area over a limited period of time.
As far as proof, you have presented very little. Scientists say isn't proof of anything.
Climate scientists are the experts n this particular field and thankfully they don't just say thing they provide proof to back up the things they say.
So here's your chance. Provide us with irrefutable proof that man-made climate change is real and demonstrate how much of the heating up is caused by us pesky humans.
These links can explain the evidence better than I can.
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-basic.htm
https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming
In answer to your question humans are responsible for over 100% of the temperature rise since 1950
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
All of these points are backed up by peer reviewed research and data, they are backed up the scientific process.
I don't like using scientific consensus as a way of validating an argument. All I can say is the evidence appears to be so overwhelming it has led to virtually a unanimous scientific consensus.
This chart is a better scale.
I'll simplify, Star.
You refereed to overwhelming evidence.
Give us your top three evidences that are so overhwhelming that they practically constitute proof.
No need to link us to papers. We can all link to papers...but where does that get anyone, other becoming quicker at hotkey URL /paste haha!
Give us the skinny, in your own simplified terms.
...and then, once you've done that, give us your overwhelming evidence that more CO2 in the atmosphere will result in famine and drought.
There's been spikes even before humans could have had any impact...looks like a natural cycle...more worried about the plummet after the spike.
No need to link us to papers. We can all link to papers...but where does that get anyone
Emm it gets you to the evidence?
If I was to try and explain it simply, he can see from temperature readings from around the world that temperatures are rising and the rate at which they are rising is increasing. So whats causing this.
We know from taking measurements from the atmosphere that CO2 concentration has increased in the atmosphere. We can also tell this additional CO2 has come from human emissions both by looking at the historical records of human emitted C02 emissions and by measuring the isotopes of CO2 in the atmosphere, as human emitted CO2 contains very little of the Carbon 13 isotope found in natural emitted CO2, for the measured increased of CO2 we see a corresponding decrease of the Carbon 13 isotope so we the increase is coming from human sources.
CO2 we know through basic physics can trap energy/absorb heat. Along with the other carbon gasses in the atmosphere allows shortwave radiation from the sun to pass through them, but when this shortwave radiation hits the ground it heats it up and is deflected back up into the atmosphere as longwave radiation which gets trapped by the carbon gasses, the causes the carbon gas to vibrate which generates heat which radiates through the atmosphere. That CO2 absorbs long-wave radiation has been known about for over 150 years. Adding more CO2 into the atmosphere increases the amount of long wave radiation being adsorb by the atmosphere which in turn emits more heat. From measurements we can see the earth temperature has risen in lock step to the increase in human CO2 emissions. CO2 also traps energy/ heat at a very specific wavelength, different to the other carbon gasses. We can see/measure the wavelength of the energy from carbon gasses being deflected back to the earths surfaces and we can see the overwhelming majority is coming the from the wavelength that CO2 traps energy at. So we know its not coming from the other carbon gasses in the atmosphere
Now of course through out history the temperature has gone up and down via natural causes, but none of these historical causes account for the current temperature rise and the speed at which its rising at. They don't even come remotely close. All of them have been looked at, like the sun, solar activity, ocean currents and they have all been ruled out.
More CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased temperatures, increased temperatures will lead to more droughts, more droughts will lead into an increase in crop failures, more corp failures equals an increase in famines. It just logically follows on.
DbDradd just because temperature spikes occurred naturally does not mean there a good thing or something that will not affect mankind nor does it exclude man from causing temperature changes.
If you look at Draads most recent chart, it is from the conservative far-right organisation. (heritage.org)
A research and educational institution whose mission is to build and promote conservative public policies, based in Washington, D.C..
No doubt pushing dirty energy and on the payroll of oil companies, but trying to pass themselves off as scientific...
Far-right conservatism does not understand science. It is that simple.
So, Star
Are you aware that deserts have become 10-15% greener as a result of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere?
How does that play into the famine/drought predictions(because that's what they are.)
We have 30 years of evidence that proves what marijuana growers already knew...more CO2 = better crops.
https://earthsky.org/science-wire/elevated-carbon-dioxide-making-arid-regions-greener
Versus...
Man-made global warming is gonna kill all the plants and people will starve.
Let's assume that man wasn't creating CO2. Today, we'd have bigger deserts, less farmable land and more famine.
Thanks for the radiation lesson. Tell me...which reflects more long and shortwave radiation...green forests or desert sand? You already know the answer.
No I didn't know that, but its irrelevant. As I've pointed out before the pro's and con's of global warming have already been weighed up and the con's massively out weigh the pros. Some area's may see increased food production, but globally global warming will cause a net decrease in food production. Do you really think this hasn't been thought about?
Don't misrepresent the other side, global warming proponents are not saying its gonna kill all the plants.
Yes lets assume man wasn't creating CO2. Today we would had less extreme weather events and crop failures that would more than compensate for the small increase in farmable land in desert area's. Like Mozart you need to stop cherry picking and look at the data on the whole.
Tell me which reflects more long and shortwave radiation, green forests, desert sand or polar ice caps? I think you already know the answer.
Do scientists agree on climate change? - NASA Climate Change
Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 per cent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the ...
Lolz
Droughts kill plants, mate.
Exactly what am I misrepresenting?
What are the net cons that outweigh the benefits of more farmable land and a greener planet with more oxygen? No long stories please, just list them.
Seriously...Unless were talking daily tornados, I struggle to think of one. Flooding? But floods don't occur during droughts because...well, that's kinda the opposite. Severe thunderstorms? Lightning puts nitrogen(great for growing plants too) into the ground.
I'm gonna have a guess that my argument is too simplistic, right?
Man-made global warming is much more complex? See, it affects this river and that forest and the ph of that pond and and and...Armageddon!
Am I close?
Droughts do indeed kill plants. Now tell me where anyone was suggesting a drought would kill all the plants on earth. You used the words "global warming is gonna kill all the planet" which anyone reading would logical assume means all plants on earth, you know this and you know your misrepresenting the other side. Don't try to deny this.
Increase in droughts which leads to an increase in famines. Increase in sea levels which will put low lying coastal regions under water. More frequent severe weather events, like storms, hurricanes, heat waves, flooding, wildfires and dust storms, more acidic oceans, less bio diversity/more wildlife extinctions and less clean air. And no they don't contradict each other, different regions will be affected in different ways, this is basic easy to look up information.
And yes your argument is too simplistic.
Lol Star
Why would I deny it? You do realise that people can read what I wrote?
Of course I was exaggerating since the only thing that would kill ALL the plants on earth would be a complete loss of atmosphere or something similarly catastrophic.
Nevermind, let's continue.
Shall we deal with your first point...increase in droughts.
Now, without Googling...can you tell me if global rainfall over land has increased, decreased or remained the same over the last 100 years?
It has increased.
Ah, ok...but it's the "extreme" rain that's the problem.
Have floods become more or less regular over the last 100 years.
Before you answer...how much flooding is the result of new, badly built or poorly managed dams?
...and do those papers take dams into account? What happens to the flooding data when you strike man-made floods from the numbers? Are we still at increased flooding?
So.....the spike of 1985 to 2020 is no more significant than the spike between 1910 and 1945 when Co2 had barely budged. If the increase since the industrial revolution is 1.2 degrees c....the increase since CO2 levels increased is 0.7 degrees.
This increase cannot have caused all the changes the Climate lobby attributes to CO2.
The fact is man made CO2 represents about 1/1000 of the greenhouse effect. Showing there is a temperature increase and showing CO2 has increased doesn’t prove correlation.
There is no doubt CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse effect. But just because that‘s true and there have been slight changes in ‘measured’ temperature doesn’t mean that man made CO2 is the main cause. Nor is there a single version of the ‘temperature’ globally. It’s a consensus of many measurements
We have been hearing this story for 30 years now....by now we were supposed to be seeing major climate changes, temperature increases of 3 degrees or more, I see nothing except natural variability.
We're clearly too dumb to get it, Moz.
I'm still struggling with the biodiversity angle of global warming.
"less bio diversity/more wildlife extinctions and less clean air"
As I recall, it was during the early PETM that many mammal groups diversified, in the lush forest created by all the evil CO2.
All the dominant and advantageous features present in primates developed during the early PETM. It's literally a case of, no PETM---> no humans.
Forward-looking eyes and opposable thumbs. Thank you hot planet. Without you...I wouldn't be able to hit the spacebar with my monkey thumb haha
Perhaps Star would be able to enlighten us on what biodiversity looked like the last time the world got hotter than any humans could ever make it.
"Now of course through out history the temperature has gone up and down via natural causes, but none of these historical causes account for the current temperature rise and the speed at which its rising at. They don't even come remotely close. All of them have been looked at, like the sun, solar activity, ocean currents and they have all been ruled out.
BS, the average apex were higher twice "recently " in geological terms.
"DbDradd just because temperature spikes occurred naturally does not mean there a good thing or something that will not affect mankind nor does it exclude man from causing temperature changes.
Doesn't make it bad either...it is what it is.
Now, without Googling...can you tell me if global rainfall over land has increased, decreased or remained the same over the last 100 years?
It has increased.
Well with out googling it I wouldn't have known for sure but I would of guessed its increased because that was a predicted consequence of global warming, increased heat leads to increased evaporation which in turn leads to more rain. I also would of guess it increased by the very fact you where asking me that question anyway. Increased rainfall in no way contradicts global warming nor is it an overall positive benefit of climate change nor does it mitigate or balance out the other negative effects of global warming.
"Have floods become more or less regular over the last 100 years.
Before you answer...how much flooding is the result of new, badly built or poorly managed dams?
...and do those papers take dams into account? What happens to the flooding data when you strike man-made floods from the numbers? Are we still at increased flooding?"
How much flooding is caused by badly built or poorly managed damns?. I suspect quite a few but statistically insignificant compared to natural occurring floods globally I live right on the river Shannon, it has no dams and it floods every couple of years. Tell me do you have any idea how many floods have been prevented or reduced by properly maintained damns.
I'd strongly suspect flooding has increased globally and even removing man made floods from the numbers they still will have increased.
But enough with the red herrings. Rivers flood, dam or no dams, I live beside the Shannon River and it floods fairly regularly, no dam's on it. Seriously if you think increased rainfall won't result in increased flooding I don't know what to say to you at this point.
Plum any questioning is verboten. The accepted facts say we have increased 1.2 degrees since the Industrial Revolution. But 0.5 degrees occurred before man made CO2 was a factor.
Which means that temperature increased 0.7 degrees since CO2 increases became significant.....and.....there was an underlying natural temperature rebound since the little ice age.
Call that 0.2 degrees.....which leaves the man made CO2 component for 70 years at about 0.5 degrees.
And during that period we have undoubtedly had some heat island effects as cities have exploded. And the ‘scientists’ have been dicking around with the data. None of which changes have ever favored the ‘no warming’ thesis.
Call (using common sense is probably more reliable than models that are so complex nobody knows how they work) those two effects another 0.2 degrees. And .....voila.....we have man made global warming at about 0.3 degrees.
But we can’t even project this small change forward because we are becoming more carbon efficient, natural gas vs coal for example. And because the CO2 effect, contrary to the tipping point models, probably has diminishing effects on temperature. The old law of diminishing returns.
And I’m guessing we aren’t at optimal temperature...why would we be on a random basis? All the data suggests mankind flourishes when the earth is a little warmer. So these small man made effects we are trying to mitigate at a huge cost, are probably benign.
...............
Decency and our duty to future generations suggests we should preserve as much oil as we can. It is the elixir that created modern man and allowed huge populations to flourish. There is a role for nuclear in all of this. And a role for conservation, hypocrites like Branson should be condemned for their selfish use of resources.
Flooding is also attributed to the increase in building, of roads, homes and businesses.
"If you look at Draads most recent chart, it is from the conservative far-right organisation. (heritage.org)"
I Googled for Earth's temperature over the last million years...I wasn't looking for a right-wing view...are you saying the data is wrong? Ir are the PC crowd too dishonest to look at data they don't like.
Like have said before, pollution is a big problem, but politicizing it won't solve the issues . Even if we were able to drastically curb CO2 emissions, we will still have to face a drastic drop in Earth's atmosphere in the near future...but all the alarmists seems to be ignoring that obvious fact.
Haha Star,
Yes, increased rainfall would see increased flooding.
However, the "apocalyptic" increase in flooding as suggested in some of the papers on the subject don't take many causes outside of CO2 into account.
There seems to be a lot that you simply suspect. Kinda exactly what the global warming politics relies on.
How about having a look?
All I'm saying is that we've barely begun talking and I've already identified a few areas where you're unsure of the figures and outcomes.
And I'm not even exploring Moz's point about how much temperature rise we're responsible for. Just arguing your points at face value.
"How much flooding is caused by badly built or poorly managed damns?. I suspect quite a few but statistically insignificant compared to natural occurring floods"
Close to 60% of the nation will likely have snow and ice on the ground in the storm's wake by the middle of next week," Rayno said. "This appears to be a significant snowstorm in the Plains.”
A blast of frigid air extending from the U.S.-Canada border down through the southern Plains along with the storm will be the main culprit behind the tremendous expanse of snow and ice expected with the storm. Temperatures will plunge as much as 40 degrees below normal compared to mid-February averages.
.........
I’m not drinking the Kool-aid
The ay the whole argument has developed gives it all away.
First it was the global colling threat. Then we had the global warming threat. When that was shown not to be happening beyond what were cyclical changes they changed it to Climate change. Increased COs - man made of course - would both increase and decrease temperatures!!!
Mnhattan should have been under water by 2015! There is no rise in sea levels.
Hussein Obummer loved to speak about global warming and the rise in sea levels but bought his mansion by the sea as did that other nutter Al Gore.
To me the biggest the biggest expose of the hoax is that both India and China are allowed to pollute to their hearts content. Bwhahahhahahahahahaha
Face facts, the climate change hoaxers have been left with huge egg on visogs! Tell me a prediction of these loons that has come true. Is all been a lot of BS.
No its now very obvious climate change is all political. The Open borders globalist elite want to establish a world government. How can thy get people to surrender their freedoms and their countries to the elites. Well fear will be the mechanism. They will use climate change, Pandemics like covid, threat of world war, financial collapse to herd the peoples of the world into their one world government.
The politicization of the CCP Virus is a perfect example of how they use these events to gain power and strip people of their freedom even the right to earn a living.
Supporting these effort is the globalist owned Big Tech and globalist owned MSM. Here the aim is to totally control the narrative.
Those not bowing down to their demands and cancelled. They control the schools and indoctrinate kids in globalist/marxist ideology and teaching children to hate their country, its flag ,constitution, values and history. All as a prelude to the surrender of sovereignty. America must be brought to its knees. They ae the big prize. Name me one EO of China Joe that has benefited the American people.
So Climate change is designed to hurt America and allow China to thrive. As are all China Joe's policies. The CCP Demonrats are bed with the commies that much is very clear.
Not surprising radical globalist/marxists like Sharkstink and Redrooistink are nasty little commies and hated President trump's tough stance n China.
They hated America First policies because they hated America and loved China. The marxist /socialist minority have stolen an election via massive voter fraud. However the story doesn't end here.
By they way did anybody here see any of the fascist marxist Stinker G roup decrying the assault on free speech by big tech. Please let me know.
Climate changes regardless of human action...if we should be able to totally negate human influence, we still are going to sit with a major cooling problem within the next millennium...it's just funny how the alarmists ignore some facts and highlight others...dishonesty...why?...why lie?
Look how they tried to suppress news of Hunters laptop from hell. Those talking about it were cancelled. Not allowed to talk about election fraud or you will be cancelled. Cant talk about the CCP virus unless you agree with WHO.
Now the CDC says hydroxychloroquine works. They attack Ivermectin. They silence dissenting medical people.
Look at the attack on Parler; so many conservative have been kicked off Fascistbook, Twitter and You Tube.
Massive global revolt against big tech underway.
But of course on the board the Stinker group love all this marxist behaviour. To think redstink tried to tell us he was a moderate. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Anger buys the bs that increased snow and frigid temperatures are evidence of global warming. There are always con artists, and sadly there are always dupes....like Anger.
Stinkers indeed
As far as I can tell, everything that falls outside of what they expect = global warming brought on by man-made CO2.
A dry summer resulting bushfires...global warming. A wet summer with less bushfires ...evil CO2 caused rain which stopped the bushfires and as a result there is less Nitrogen in the soil.
More OR less rain, wind, snow, hail, sunshine, tornadoes...global warming.
Quite nice actually, to have an overarching culprit that is responsible for everything outside of this year being the exact same ad the year/s before.
Funny stuff.
I'm still waiting for Star to tell me more about biodiversity as regards increased man-made CO2.
LOL...maybe it really is a Global Freezing Question
Tell it to the Russians, Canadians and to the far North American//European and Asian dwellers...hahaha.
Afterall you can study all the charts and statistics you like but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Intellectual theories versus practical experienced wisdom.
There are far more importan t issues such as the pollution of the rivers, seas and the shocking littering problem in the world that kills all natural life, fish and resources in the world.
The filth in our waters and lands is an utter abomination...my own once exquisitely beautiful country has become a gigantic rubbish dump and sewer. Fish and other marine life is dying in the seas as well as freshwater life. Wildlife is diminishing at a rapid rate, soils are poisoned, indigenous trees are getting less in favour of huge alien plantations of gum, wattle and pine.
Mankind is as blind as a bat when it comes to PRIORITIES.
...but there's no political incentive, Seb.
Pollution isn't sexy, dangerous or nearly as taxable as CO2.