Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#6,001
#6,001
McDad said:
Quote from link:

"The paper, which will be published online in the European Geosciences Union journal*Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics*Discussion*later this week, projects sea levels rising as much as 10 feet in the next 50 years."

So, this is the most dire "what if" scenario. 1 foot every 5 years of rise. 2+ inches per year. I wonder how people will prepare for such an onslaught of water? Well, they could move their home to higher ground. As long as they elevate more than 2.5 inches per year, they're good. Build levees around their home. Raise the ground level. Move to another home on a modest hill. Betcha there's many ways to outpace 10 feet in 50 years.
Click to expand...

I can't tell this time McDad -- are you joking or serious? SandVol thinks it's alarming, and he too has suggested we just embrace sea level rise and deal with the consequences.

Do you understand you're talking about abandoning entire cities and displacing millions in America alone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,002
#6,002
BartW said:
This businessman thinks he can change the GOP’s mind on climate change
Click to expand...
Article by this guy:

I’m a Republican. I Want My Party to Tackle Climate Change. And I'm spending $175 million of my own money to get them to act.

As a conservative, I strongly believe it’s time to stop fighting about the climate problem and begin fighting about the solutions. If conservatives fail to put forward our own agenda, climate change policy will likely go the way of health care — the Democrats owned the answers, and we ended up with Obamacare. On carbon pollution, a similar dynamic is already happening; exhibit A is the Environmental Protection Agency’s new 111(d) rule. It mandates that states must reduce carbon emissions — by an EPA-decreed amount — from their existing power plants. The agency is requiring each state to develop its own compliance plan or face a federally imposed one. It’s a top-down, regulate-and-mandate solution rather than an economywide, market-based system.

We need — and I believe we’re developing — better answers, genuinely conservative answers that do exist in the realm of proven fact, technological finding and smart forecasting.


People too often forget today that the Republican Party has long been the voice of smart environmental policy. Teddy Roosevelt, our original conservationist, protected our national treasures for future generations. Richard M. Nixon signed the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Ronald Reagan forged an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. George H.W. Bush enacted a trading program that lowered sulfur dioxide, the primary ingredient in acid rain, by 80 percent.

A candidate who embraces these past successes and articulates a market-friendly vision for addressing climate change could shift the environmental debate in a direction that favors Republicans — and free markets.

There is no shortage of policy initiatives to consider. The best ones involve entrepreneurial innovation, lower taxes and less bureaucracy.

Republican primary voters currently have more than 16 declared and potential 2016 candidates to choose from. More than one will smartly break away from the pack by embracing free-market solutions to our extraordinary opportunities in energy. It’s good policy and good politics. Moreover, I believe it will fuel a revitalized GOP — and that’s something this nation badly needs.
Click to expand...
:crossfingers:
 
#6,004
#6,004
BartW said:
UAH isn't surface temperature. JMA and NOAA both agree with NASA; last June was the warmest on record. And we're likely going to continue breaking records well into next year thanks to El Nino.
Click to expand...

And we humans are all to blame right Al? I mean nature has nothing to do with any of this.
 
#6,005
#6,005
BartW said:
I can't tell this time McDad -- are you joking or serious? SandVol thinks it's alarming, and he too has suggested we just embrace sea level rise and deal with the consequences.

Do you understand you're talking about abandoning entire cities and displacing millions in America alone?
Click to expand...

What's the solution then? If we have, as you and other "scientists" claim, caused all of this catastrophic damage, then what do we do?
 
#6,007
#6,007
BigOrangeTrain said:
And we humans are all to blame right Al? I mean nature has nothing to do with any of this.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify. We're likely going to continue breaking records well into next year thanks to El Nino and the underlying warming trend from anthropogenic climate change.
 
#6,009
#6,009
BartW said:
Let me clarify. We're likely going to continue breaking records well into next year thanks to El Nino and the underlying warming trend from anthropogenic climate change.
Click to expand...

And as long as Karl et. al. continue cherry picking their methods.
 
#6,011
#6,011
BartW said:
We could put a price on pollution and pay less taxes
Click to expand...

So that's the solution? Do you honestly believe that will fix the climate? So basically you think that if pollution is cut that alone will alter natures plans? If you truly believe that then all I can say is wow.
 
#6,014
#6,014
BigOrangeTrain said:
So basically you think that if pollution is cut that alone will alter natures plans?
Click to expand...

2mbe2Z8.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,018
#6,018
BartW said:
Like you always cherrypick the UAH dataset? And what does Karl have to do with NASA's or Japan's analyses?

:question:

Climate denial linked to conspiratorial thinking in new study
Click to expand...

But then you link an article referencing a NOAA climate scientist. Then you ask me what NOAA and NASA have to do with each other. They use the exact same data set don't they? Oh, I know they both have independent free thinking unbiased analysts. Right. Now answer my question about JMA.
 
#6,019
#6,019
When humans go extinct, it will not be because of man's contributions to global warming. I am betting on one of three scenarios: One large Asteroid, several medium sized asteroids, or Yellowstone volcano eruption. Statistically, we're due for a massive Yellowstone eruption. It averages one massive eruption every 600,000 years, and it has been 630,000 years since the last one.
 
#6,020
#6,020
SamRebel35 said:
When humans go extinct, it will not be because of man's contributions to global warming. I am betting on one of three scenarios: One large Asteroid, several medium sized asteroids, or Yellowstone volcano eruption. Statistically, we're due for a massive Yellowstone eruption. It averages one massive eruption every 600,000 years, and it has been 630,000 years since the last one.
Click to expand...

It won't happen since man isn't causing it.
 
#6,023
#6,023
Sandvol said:
Man is causing the Yellowstone eruptions?
Click to expand...

No. Man contributes to global warming. I didn't catch your joke in your last response. I thought you were saying that man made global warming wouldn't kill us all because man isn't making it. You were saying that Yellowstone can't kill us because it isn't man made. I'm on your level now. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top