More Climate BS...

All we can do is try to develop other energy technologies. Even if we're heating up the planet with our CO-2 emissions, we're not going back to the horse and buggy. We're going to have to live with it. Raising taxes on fossil fuels won't have any effect on our climate. All it will do is take more money from us

Climate change folks have yet to give us a solution
 
Source: me, a geologist, in the private sector, part of ownership of our small (30ish people) very successful and well-respected geoscience/engineering consulting firm. Nobody at my firm or any other geo firm I’ve worked for shares your views on this subject. Nor does anybody I’ve met in relevant fields in private sector, public, or academia.

I have degrees in physics and geology from UT. My dad’s been in UT’s physics department for decades, including as department head, and is UT’s 2026 Macebearer, among an endless list of awesome accomplishments. We don’t work directly on climate change but we understand basic physics.

I didn’t expect you to attempt to answer my question. Nobody on this forum has! But I read you’re a physicist too? Then you should be able to grasp this.

If global warming were due to an external forcing, such as an increase in solar output, the upper atmosphere would be warming. If global warming is due to greenhouse gases, the surface and lower atmosphere would warm, but the upper atmosphere would cool. Stratospheric cooling was predicted by Syukuro Manabe in the early ‘60s and has been verified by weather balloon and satellite data since the ‘80s. Manabe won a Nobel prize in physics for this. Stratospheric cooling is considered a human “fingerprint” in global warming.
Among other fingerprints, we can also directly measure the changes in incoming and outgoing radiation in the specific absorption bands of different atmospheric gases and thereby measure the change in flux due to greenhouse gases. And we can measure any change in radiation from the sun. It’s overwhelmingly obvious that current global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases from human emissions, and not by the sun.

What do we do about it? That's the real debate.
It's a freaking hoax. Why do the climate change advocates only look at data from 1960 when there is realizable data since the 1800's? Explain the 1930's and the heat wave then which was much higher than now. It was the cause of the Dust Bowl, and contour plowing wouldn't have made a difference.
H20 has a far greater influence on temperature than CO2 and it is much more abundant when the temperature is high. That is why it is drier in the cold months and more humid in the hot ones.
Without the bogus Hockey Stick Graph, find me a correlation between higher CO2 levels and higher temperature. The earth is actually better of with more CO2, it is greener now that it has been decades.
I understand that it is very difficult to speak out against the machine, and a lot of people are intimidated into buying the lie, but man caused climate change is 🐂 💩 .
 
I understand it’s healthy to be skeptical, especially in the science field. The problem is that if you start with disqualifying standards (like accurate temperature recordings over the lifespan of the earth, like who would ever believe that’s achievable?) then you’ve already made up your mind.

most of the climate scientists seem to do just that.

how else do they make the claim that there has been change, yet alone what is normal? they are "betting" on some sort temperature recordings over the lifespan of the earth to make their judgements.

but then when the fallacy of that assumption is pointed out, by you a believer, it never gets looked into and examined as part of the science.
 
It’s not “chemistry”, it’s just plain chemistry. Yes the earth has gone through cycles, every planet does. Usually the cycles aren’t abrupt and occur over tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. That is all fact… and has nothing to do with the current artificial increase in greenhouse gasses. It’s all measurable, the ppm of various particles in the atmosphere, the ocean temps and levels, glacial melt, change in bird migration patterns, extreme algae blooms, and on and on.

I understand it’s healthy to be skeptical, especially in the science field. The problem is that if you start with disqualifying standards (like accurate temperature recordings over the lifespan of the earth, like who would ever believe that’s achievable?) then you’ve already made up your mind.

Also, the line I keep hearing about the “grift” sounds an awful lot like calling out an actual budding American industry (something we are in short supply of right about now) for using practices that every other dirty American industry does (and then some). There is no conspiracy here, it’s just a lot of fossil fuel money being thrown into propaganda to create talking points against renewables.

In the end, we all know we have to reach totally renewable energy sources anyway, why not push toward that end? I’ll tell you why, because Americans are procrastinators. We do it in healthcare, in finance (personal and business), in politics, in just about every aspect of life. A “put it off till later” attitude. “Why do I have to worry about it, I’ll be dead?” I hear that crap all the time. What happened to planting the seed of a tree whose shade you’ll never sit under?
Tell me about Climate Gate. I haven't heard any of y'all explain that one.
 
I am sorry, what?


"The Sun’s energy output changes over multiple time scales. The most regular pattern is an 11-year cycle of high and low activity caused by reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles. During strong cycles, the Sun’s total brightness at solar maximum is about 0.1 percent higher than it is at solar minimum."

the peaks since 1950 have been the highest recorded. even after the drops the peaks have been higher.

and if you think that 0.1% is negligible realize that is on the scale of the sun.
lol so the earth doesn’t receive consistent sun rays? Because that’s what I said. Keep explaining, if ya want.
 

Advertisement



Back
Top