One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Trump way of dealing with C*****e C****e
Page <<first <prev 7 of 8 next>
May 16, 2019 18:49:59   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
AHO-C wrote:
'C 'est la vie mon ami'...are you callin' me a Baboon butt in Martian or sumthin' ??? Have a great day!!


Lololollolol ~~~

Dare I do such a thing, nope, nada, and non....

Reply
May 17, 2019 12:10:46   #
AHO-C
 
Sew_What wrote:
From:http:www.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-c*****e-c****e/#.XN2a3uhKhaQ

Excerpted
For example, a team of four NASA scientists led by Andrew Lacis and including Gavin Schmidt, found this: “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.”

Yes, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect. And, in fact, a companion study led by Schmidt showed that water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, with CO2 coming in at 20 percent, and other non-condensing greenhouse gases making up the rest.

So given that CO2 accounts for just a fifth of Earth’s overall greenhouse effect, what supports the claim that it nevertheless is the most important greenhouse gas?

The answer involves different characteristics of greenhouse gases. When the atmosphere cools enough, water vapor condenses and rains out. By contrast, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases do not — they are non-condensing.

The researchers found that without these non-condensing greenhouse gases — CO2 foremost among them — there would be nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out. And since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, if water vapor were to rain out, the result would be very dramatic cooling. In this way, CO2 may not be as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it is actually more important.

“Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state,” the authors of the first study concluded.

Just how much does carbon dioxide contribute? The second study led by Gavin Schmidt concluded that the CO2 in our atmosphere is itself is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains Earth’s greenhouse effect.

CO2 and Earth's Energy Budget
Scientists have worked out the fine details of how energy flows through Earth’s atmosphere, as seen in this diagram. It shows how energy contained in sunlight warms our planet, and how this energy becomes temporarily trapped as it flows away from Earth’s surface as longwave infrared radiation. This energy trap produces the greenhouse effect, the main driver of g****l w*****g. (Source: Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeff Kiehl via UCAR)

This brings me to another claim made by some commenters here at ImaGeo. Climate records show that global temperatures drop before CO2 does as Earth enters an ice age, and visa versa too: Temperatures rise before CO2 as we come out of an ice age. So once again, CO2 cannot be the most important factor.

Scientists have actually long known that something something other than CO2 sets things in motion when Earth enters and emerges from ice ages: shifts in solar radiation reaching Earth due to variations in the Earth’s orientation to the Sun. (These are known as Milankovitch cycles). Then other natural feedbacks kick in — most especially changes in carbon dioxide.

Scientists haven’t fully teased out all of the details yet. But in general, the picture looks like this:

As Earth starts to warm at the end of an ice age due to increased solar radiation reaching Earth, ice sheets and snow begin to contract. These surfaces are very reflective. So as they shrink, less sunlight is reflected back into space. This helps to enhance the warming. The warming causes ocean waters to give up CO2 — because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. This strongly enhances the warming, which reduces the ice and snow, which causes more warming, which increases the CO2, leading to even more warming.

The bottom line is that a change in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth may get things going, but it’s CO2 that plays the dominant role.

This general picture leaves out some important details, such as the role of fresh water flowing into the oceans as ice sheets melt. A 2012 study led by Jeremy Shakun, now a Boston College climatologist, examined some of these details. Skeptical Science posted an excellent explainer about the results here. But the upshot of the study was this: “While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase.”

I’ll finish with one recent piece of research in which a team of five scientists examined the role of greenhouse gases in temperature anomalies, including the overall warming trend, since the onset of the industrial revolution.

Here, too, commenters on this blog often claim that since recent periods in Earth’s past were almost as warm as it is now, we can’t know for sure that the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere is responsible for the observed recent warming.

But in their paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, the scientists confirmed that our emissions of greenhouse gases, “especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”

Earth’s climate is clearly an incredibly complex system. And climate scientists have never contended that they’ve understood all the details, or that their current understanding isn’t subject to revision when new evidence comes along. This is why they continue to do their research – to improve our understanding of how one of Earth’s key life support systems works.

They’ve also never contended that CO2 is the sole factor driving c*****e c****es over geologic history. As we’ve seen, however, it plays a key role: Without the CO2 thermostat, Earth would likely be a proverbial snowball.

And now, we humans have turned the thermostat up, with predictable results that we’re already observing — such as changes to permafrost in the Arctic that got me going on this post to begin with.
From:http:www.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/... (show quote)


That is very good information !! Is Climate changing...yes it is !! Is it getting warmer...yes !!! Is this warming without precedent....no !!! Is the warming increase solely due to the USA...no!! The problem with focusing on one aspect of the Climate is you can not model this ...







with all that being said I agree we all need to improve what we do and how we do it....BUT we must all be aware that there are consequences for everything we do and we may not even know it !! As Popeye said 'Bad is bad...even if it does good for
with all that being said I agree we all need to   ...

Reply
May 17, 2019 12:52:13   #
MR Mister Loc: Washington DC
 
Sew_What wrote:
From:http:www.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-c*****e-c****e/#.XN2a3uhKhaQ

Excerpted
For example, a team of four NASA scientists led by Andrew Lacis and including Gavin Schmidt, found this: “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.”

Yes, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect. And, in fact, a companion study led by Schmidt showed that water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, with CO2 coming in at 20 percent, and other non-condensing greenhouse gases making up the rest.

So given that CO2 accounts for just a fifth of Earth’s overall greenhouse effect, what supports the claim that it nevertheless is the most important greenhouse gas?

The answer involves different characteristics of greenhouse gases. When the atmosphere cools enough, water vapor condenses and rains out. By contrast, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases do not — they are non-condensing.

The researchers found that without these non-condensing greenhouse gases — CO2 foremost among them — there would be nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out. And since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, if water vapor were to rain out, the result would be very dramatic cooling. In this way, CO2 may not be as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it is actually more important.

“Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state,” the authors of the first study concluded.

Just how much does carbon dioxide contribute? The second study led by Gavin Schmidt concluded that the CO2 in our atmosphere is itself is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains Earth’s greenhouse effect.

CO2 and Earth's Energy Budget
Scientists have worked out the fine details of how energy flows through Earth’s atmosphere, as seen in this diagram. It shows how energy contained in sunlight warms our planet, and how this energy becomes temporarily trapped as it flows away from Earth’s surface as longwave infrared radiation. This energy trap produces the greenhouse effect, the main driver of g****l w*****g. (Source: Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeff Kiehl via UCAR)

This brings me to another claim made by some commenters here at ImaGeo. Climate records show that global temperatures drop before CO2 does as Earth enters an ice age, and visa versa too: Temperatures rise before CO2 as we come out of an ice age. So once again, CO2 cannot be the most important factor.

Scientists have actually long known that something something other than CO2 sets things in motion when Earth enters and emerges from ice ages: shifts in solar radiation reaching Earth due to variations in the Earth’s orientation to the Sun. (These are known as Milankovitch cycles). Then other natural feedbacks kick in — most especially changes in carbon dioxide.

Scientists haven’t fully teased out all of the details yet. But in general, the picture looks like this:

As Earth starts to warm at the end of an ice age due to increased solar radiation reaching Earth, ice sheets and snow begin to contract. These surfaces are very reflective. So as they shrink, less sunlight is reflected back into space. This helps to enhance the warming. The warming causes ocean waters to give up CO2 — because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. This strongly enhances the warming, which reduces the ice and snow, which causes more warming, which increases the CO2, leading to even more warming.

The bottom line is that a change in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth may get things going, but it’s CO2 that plays the dominant role.

This general picture leaves out some important details, such as the role of fresh water flowing into the oceans as ice sheets melt. A 2012 study led by Jeremy Shakun, now a Boston College climatologist, examined some of these details. Skeptical Science posted an excellent explainer about the results here. But the upshot of the study was this: “While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase.”

I’ll finish with one recent piece of research in which a team of five scientists examined the role of greenhouse gases in temperature anomalies, including the overall warming trend, since the onset of the industrial revolution.

Here, too, commenters on this blog often claim that since recent periods in Earth’s past were almost as warm as it is now, we can’t know for sure that the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere is responsible for the observed recent warming.

But in their paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, the scientists confirmed that our emissions of greenhouse gases, “especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”

Earth’s climate is clearly an incredibly complex system. And climate scientists have never contended that they’ve understood all the details, or that their current understanding isn’t subject to revision when new evidence comes along. This is why they continue to do their research – to improve our understanding of how one of Earth’s key life support systems works.

They’ve also never contended that CO2 is the sole factor driving c*****e c****es over geologic history. As we’ve seen, however, it plays a key role: Without the CO2 thermostat, Earth would likely be a proverbial snowball.

And now, we humans have turned the thermostat up, with predictable results that we’re already observing — such as changes to permafrost in the Arctic that got me going on this post to begin with.
From:http:www.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/... (show quote)




So what is the percent of c02 today? do you know?
If c02 is in the upper atmosphere the temperature at 30,000 feet and up would be elevated, do you know what the temp is at 35,000 feet is today? It's 30 below zero. AND THE C02 IS 0.04%
Where is all this c02 hiding? FACTS just look it up. Go check the Navy web site they do lots of compressed air diving and know everything about the atmosphere.
Now as to the heating up going on, it's only in the northern hemisphere and that is do to all the pavement,
homes, millions of square miles of green grass covered over mostly black in color.
Even California has figured it out, as they are painting some of there roads white!

Reply
 
 
May 17, 2019 13:53:21   #
Mikeyavelli
 
MR Mister wrote:
So what is the percent of c02 today? do you know?
If c02 is in the upper atmosphere the temperature at 30,000 feet and up would be elevated, do you know what the temp is at 35,000 feet is today? It's 30 below zero. AND THE C02 IS 0.04%
Where is all this c02 hiding? FACTS just look it up. Go check the Navy web site they do lots of compressed air diving and know everything about the atmosphere.
Now as to the heating up going on, it's only in the northern hemisphere and that is do to all the pavement,
homes, millions of square miles of green grass covered over mostly black in color.
Even California has figured it out, as they are painting some of there roads white!
So what is the percent of c02 today? do you know... (show quote)

And they are not expelling digestive gases. At least they act that way.

Reply
May 17, 2019 17:07:42   #
Nickolai
 
MR Mister wrote:
Well, again you are full of sh*t. Trump never said Wind Turbines create cancer! But they do k**l a lot of birds and bats. You nut jobs went out of your minds back with DDT k*****g birds but seem ok for Wind Turbines to do it.

Now you do understand that F****l f**ls create MEDS right? And the bottle your milk comes it! Yeah, it's obvious you failed Science 101.
Go back to grammar school and start over.





Trump said the noise from the wing turbines causes cancer

Reply
May 17, 2019 17:12:20   #
Nickolai
 
Sew_What wrote:
...SHOW me in the constitution, that the executive branch can be so stupid.






Powers of Congress: When ‘Necessary and Proper’
While the Constitution does not formally grant Congress the authority to oversee the actions of the executive branch, oversight is clearly implied in the many enumerated powers of Congress. The power of congressional oversight is further reinforced by the “necessary and proper” clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The necessary and proper clause further implies that Congress has the power to investigate the actions of the executive branch. It would be impossible for Congress to apply its oversight powers without knowing whether federal programs are being administered properly and within their budgets and whether executive branch officials are obeying the law and complying with the legislative intent of the laws.

The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the investigative powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. In the 1927 case of McGrain v. Daugherty, the Court specifically found that, in investigating actions taken by the Department of Justice, Congress had constitutionally considered a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.”

Reply
May 17, 2019 17:42:10   #
trucksterbud
 
Airforceone wrote:
Trump has told his base that Wind Turbines create cancer. His base now believes that (WIND CREATES CANCER)

Now Trump has convinced his base that F****l f**ls are safe and does not create pollution and is 100% safe from creating any medical problems.

Quote of the day———-damm you Democrat’s will you stop doing government Oversight on Trump.


Hey, AF1, explain this if you can. Your post exhibits you have no clue as to what g****l w*****g is. Explain to me and everyone else here on OPP (again if you can) how it is you always beat your drum about c*****e c****e, and claim that CO2 is a cause of g****l w*****g, blaming it on cars or vehicles with internal combustion engines.

H**e to point it out to you, here are some facts as I have researched it.:

1) Human beings emit CO2 when they breathe, its the way things are. Plants intake the CO2 and convert it back to O2 which we breathe. (Little known fact here, most of the atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, so we really breathe nitrogen)…

2) Cars and Diesel engines (which are your provider for t***sportation of goods, trucks, rail engines, drilling rigs, farm machinery are ALL diesel) emit CARBON MONOXIDE, along with a few other things like nitrous oxide and particulates. So the blatant lies of the liberal left MORONS don't stand up under scrutiny. Gasoline engines are the worst pollutants, and especially the ones that burn 10% Ethanol. Alcohol is NOT a motor fuel. A recent study indicated that allergies went up drastically when ethanol was introduced into gasoline at the station. Also, gasoline laced with alcohol reduces your mileage MPG of your vehicle. I've seen it with my own vehicle. Diesel engines are the cleanest burning as they emit BURNT carbon which falls back to the ground. Most of the pollutants of a diesel engine fall to the ground and are absorbed back to the earth as carbon when it rains.

So, the liberal left lunacy doesn't stand up under examination.

3) Did you know when a field of wind turbines is hooked up to an electrical grid, if those turbines don't turn and produce electricity then the users on that grid pay the owners of the turbines a "Subsidy" for the turbines not turning. Bet you didn't know that one did you..?? Same with the solar panels. If the day is cloudy and the panels don't produce, then you pay the owners a "subsidy" through the electric coop...
And.... you still pay the powerplant (coal fired or natural gas) to send you your electricity... Bet you didn't know that did you. .??? That's because your kind are a bunch of morons.

You post this crap and know not what you speak of . Either get a clue or go back to Russia or where ever you came from. Your posts, all of them, show you have little knowledge about which you wish to speak.

Reply
 
 
May 17, 2019 20:33:38   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Nickolai wrote:
Trump said the noise from the wing turbines causes cancer


Trump said you are obsessed with him....

Reply
May 17, 2019 22:13:56   #
Mikeyavelli
 
lindajoy wrote:
Trump said you are obsessed with him....


If nickolai is a Russian, why isn't he a Trump supporter?

Reply
May 17, 2019 22:25:01   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
Mikeyavelli wrote:
If nickolai is a Russian, why isn't he a Trump supporter?


He’s Got to deflect that given what has been going on~~~

Reply
May 17, 2019 22:48:44   #
Mikeyavelli
 
lindajoy wrote:
He’s Got to deflect that given what has been going on~~~


Oh yeah, you could get a subpoena from Waddles Nadler for having a name like Nikolai. I got a minor investigation from the FBI for sitting next to a guy in a bar who ordered a Moscow Mule.
Caviar will will warrant an investigation if you are caught eating it. Sputnik is illegal on Facebook.

Reply
 
 
May 24, 2019 03:12:19   #
redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX
 
Airforceone wrote:
Yup the Republican way is ignore 19 intel agencies that reported the Russians hacked into our e******n process. And then believe one man Donald Trump who agreed with Putin that Russia (DID NOT DO IT I BELIEVE PUTIN)

Then these intel agencies turn the intel over to the FBI and republicans feel to the best way is to just ignore our intel agencies and call it a giant conspiracy.

When the FBI started to investigate these intelligence reports and at every turn they found a Trump campaign advisor. So as soon as they found these people republicans say ignore it.

When the evidence showed the Trump campaign and Trump himself flat out lied 🤥 in many occasions and kept changing there testimony and finally had to plead guilty and receive jail sentencing it was a Muellar team full with a bunch of democrats out to take down Trump.

But okay just ignore the rule of law throw out the constitution and create a dictatorship in this country. So for the next 50 years let’s just let the Trump crime family run this country.
Yup the Republican way is ignore 19 intel agencies... (show quote)


Facts? Who gives a rip about facts?

Let's start with the "19 intel agencies". According to Wiki there are 16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Intelligence_Community

Now let's look at the credibility of those all agreeing on Russian hacking.
Of these, the Twenty-Fifth Air Force, Intelligence and Security Command (Army), Coast Guard Intelligence, Office of National Security Intelligence (drugs), Marine Corps Intelligence Activity, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and Office of Naval Intelligence are unlikely to have even an interest in Russian hacking. They have real jobs that involve military, drug, and geospacial interests (7 of the 16 who could give a rip). The National Security Agency/Central Security Service, National Reconnaissance Office and Defense Intelligence Agency are defense agencies, unlikely to be involved in a hacking issue. (down to 6 agencies that may have looked into this). Just to clarify the hyperboli accusation that all 16 (or if you wish to maintain your claim, 19) agencies agreed. Really smells like BS to me.

The rest of your claims just don't hold water either. The Muellar report settled it. Now we need the investigation of the instigators of the investigation. I agree with you, SOMEONE needs to go to jail, or possibly hanged for treason.

Reply
May 24, 2019 03:22:08   #
redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX
 
trucksterbud wrote:
Hey, AF1, explain this if you can. Your post exhibits you have no clue as to what g****l w*****g is. Explain to me and everyone else here on OPP (again if you can) how it is you always beat your drum about c*****e c****e, and claim that CO2 is a cause of g****l w*****g, blaming it on cars or vehicles with internal combustion engines.

H**e to point it out to you, here are some facts as I have researched it.:

1) Human beings emit CO2 when they breathe, its the way things are. Plants intake the CO2 and convert it back to O2 which we breathe. (Little known fact here, most of the atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, so we really breathe nitrogen)…

2) Cars and Diesel engines (which are your provider for t***sportation of goods, trucks, rail engines, drilling rigs, farm machinery are ALL diesel) emit CARBON MONOXIDE, along with a few other things like nitrous oxide and particulates. So the blatant lies of the liberal left MORONS don't stand up under scrutiny. Gasoline engines are the worst pollutants, and especially the ones that burn 10% Ethanol. Alcohol is NOT a motor fuel. A recent study indicated that allergies went up drastically when ethanol was introduced into gasoline at the station. Also, gasoline laced with alcohol reduces your mileage MPG of your vehicle. I've seen it with my own vehicle. Diesel engines are the cleanest burning as they emit BURNT carbon which falls back to the ground. Most of the pollutants of a diesel engine fall to the ground and are absorbed back to the earth as carbon when it rains.

So, the liberal left lunacy doesn't stand up under examination.

3) Did you know when a field of wind turbines is hooked up to an electrical grid, if those turbines don't turn and produce electricity then the users on that grid pay the owners of the turbines a "Subsidy" for the turbines not turning. Bet you didn't know that one did you..?? Same with the solar panels. If the day is cloudy and the panels don't produce, then you pay the owners a "subsidy" through the electric coop...
And.... you still pay the powerplant (coal fired or natural gas) to send you your electricity... Bet you didn't know that did you. .??? That's because your kind are a bunch of morons.

You post this crap and know not what you speak of . Either get a clue or go back to Russia or where ever you came from. Your posts, all of them, show you have little knowledge about which you wish to speak.
Hey, AF1, explain this if you can. Your post exhib... (show quote)



Reply
May 24, 2019 03:58:03   #
redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX
 
Sew_What wrote:
From:http:www.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-c*****e-c****e/#.XN2a3uhKhaQ

Excerpted
For example, a team of four NASA scientists led by Andrew Lacis and including Gavin Schmidt, found this: “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.”

Yes, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect. And, in fact, a companion study led by Schmidt showed that water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, with CO2 coming in at 20 percent, and other non-condensing greenhouse gases making up the rest.

So given that CO2 accounts for just a fifth of Earth’s overall greenhouse effect, what supports the claim that it nevertheless is the most important greenhouse gas?

The answer involves different characteristics of greenhouse gases. When the atmosphere cools enough, water vapor condenses and rains out. By contrast, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases do not — they are non-condensing.

The researchers found that without these non-condensing greenhouse gases — CO2 foremost among them — there would be nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out. And since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, if water vapor were to rain out, the result would be very dramatic cooling. In this way, CO2 may not be as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it is actually more important.

“Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state,” the authors of the first study concluded.

Just how much does carbon dioxide contribute? The second study led by Gavin Schmidt concluded that the CO2 in our atmosphere is itself is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains Earth’s greenhouse effect.

CO2 and Earth's Energy Budget
Scientists have worked out the fine details of how energy flows through Earth’s atmosphere, as seen in this diagram. It shows how energy contained in sunlight warms our planet, and how this energy becomes temporarily trapped as it flows away from Earth’s surface as longwave infrared radiation. This energy trap produces the greenhouse effect, the main driver of g****l w*****g. (Source: Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeff Kiehl via UCAR)

This brings me to another claim made by some commenters here at ImaGeo. Climate records show that global temperatures drop before CO2 does as Earth enters an ice age, and visa versa too: Temperatures rise before CO2 as we come out of an ice age. So once again, CO2 cannot be the most important factor.

Scientists have actually long known that something something other than CO2 sets things in motion when Earth enters and emerges from ice ages: shifts in solar radiation reaching Earth due to variations in the Earth’s orientation to the Sun. (These are known as Milankovitch cycles). Then other natural feedbacks kick in — most especially changes in carbon dioxide.

Scientists haven’t fully teased out all of the details yet. But in general, the picture looks like this:

As Earth starts to warm at the end of an ice age due to increased solar radiation reaching Earth, ice sheets and snow begin to contract. These surfaces are very reflective. So as they shrink, less sunlight is reflected back into space. This helps to enhance the warming. The warming causes ocean waters to give up CO2 — because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. This strongly enhances the warming, which reduces the ice and snow, which causes more warming, which increases the CO2, leading to even more warming.

The bottom line is that a change in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth may get things going, but it’s CO2 that plays the dominant role.

This general picture leaves out some important details, such as the role of fresh water flowing into the oceans as ice sheets melt. A 2012 study led by Jeremy Shakun, now a Boston College climatologist, examined some of these details. Skeptical Science posted an excellent explainer about the results here. But the upshot of the study was this: “While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase.”

I’ll finish with one recent piece of research in which a team of five scientists examined the role of greenhouse gases in temperature anomalies, including the overall warming trend, since the onset of the industrial revolution.

Here, too, commenters on this blog often claim that since recent periods in Earth’s past were almost as warm as it is now, we can’t know for sure that the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere is responsible for the observed recent warming.

But in their paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, the scientists confirmed that our emissions of greenhouse gases, “especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”

Earth’s climate is clearly an incredibly complex system. And climate scientists have never contended that they’ve understood all the details, or that their current understanding isn’t subject to revision when new evidence comes along. This is why they continue to do their research – to improve our understanding of how one of Earth’s key life support systems works.

They’ve also never contended that CO2 is the sole factor driving c*****e c****es over geologic history. As we’ve seen, however, it plays a key role: Without the CO2 thermostat, Earth would likely be a proverbial snowball.

And now, we humans have turned the thermostat up, with predictable results that we’re already observing — such as changes to permafrost in the Arctic that got me going on this post to begin with.
From:http:www.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/... (show quote)


Thanks for the descriptive post. As you might guess, I have a knit to pick though. The "fine details" line in the chart. Really?!?!? At least they could have admitted that this is just a WAG. Yes, a scientifically created WAG. But a WAG no less. Or are we saying that this chart is "settled science"? Wh**ever.

Now that we have a nice picture of the processes, and some guesses as to the values involved, Now What? The problem I have with this is not that the earth is heating up (at some undefined rate) but what to do about it? The hype is so bad about the WORLD IS GOING TO END!! that children are reporting being traumatized. There is an epidemic of fear and depression. Why? Because the hype says IF WE DO NOT DO SOMETHING DRASTIC TODAY.... TODAY!!!! Their world will not be around in 10, 12, 50 years. Is this really what we want our children to believe? Do we really want to raise a generation of people who do not believe they will be around in that short of time? What hope do they have? What reason do they have to not do anything they want right now because they won't actually have to live with the consequences? Millennials are not saving for the future BECAUSE C*****E C****E hucksters say there will be no future.

OK! Let's again say it is real. (I h**e doing the Devil's advocate again). So, we (the USA) spend trillions of dollars to combat this increased CO2 problem. We build high speed trains, we cover huge land areas with turbines and solar panels, we make it criminal to own or operate a gasoline or diesel machine, we fill the stratosphere with dust to reflect sunlight, ... blah blah blah... all in the name of saving the planet so our kids, the ones who are going crazy with fear right now, will have a place to live in the future. Is there ANY problem with doing this? Is there ANY downside to doing this? If not, let's get on with it. I'll start composting tomorrow.

To those of you who really think this is a True National Emergency, what is the first step? (besides getting rid of Trump, of course, that is the first step). No, technologically speaking, what should be done? No one on this site has ever listed a plan of action.

May I suggest one tiny step. STOP the MSM and the SCHOOLS from creating a generation of paranoid children, soon to be adults. Just get on with solving the problem. Tell the kids, it is being solved, even if it is not at the speed you all wish for. Give the kids a chance at having a reasonable life.

Reply
May 25, 2019 10:14:42   #
MR Mister Loc: Washington DC
 
Nickolai wrote:
Trump said the noise from the wing turbines causes cancer


Mr. Mister said it's not true.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 8 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.