Originally posted by cliffw: Has curiosity ever led you to consider looking at climate blogs which do not agree with your fantasies?
Yes. From time to time—and recently—I've looked at blogs or other websites that represent one of the contrarian lines of thinking, such as "more CO2 is a good thing," or "road vehicle electrification is doing more harm than good," or "the methodology used by the IPCC to interpret climate data is flawed in ways that make it misleadingly alarmist."
Looked at blogs, scrolled through white papers, looked at video presentations of these kinds...
Yes I have. Yessir, we have no bananas...
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-03-2024).]
Everyone agrees that climate change has happened in the past. But pretty much everyone agrees that human activity that has caused a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is making things much worse.
It is possible for BOTH of those things to be true. Climate change has happened in the past but human activity is making it worse.
You don't get it.
Those that agree that human activity that has caused a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is making things much worse, is because they have been indoctrinated.
The same ole Blah Blah Blah. Global Warming causes floods and drought. Record heat and record cold. Stronger hurricanes.
All without proof. None of the Cult's predictions have come true.
Yes. From time to time—and recently—I've looked at blogs or other websites that represent one of the contrarian lines of thinking, such as "more CO2 is a good thing," or "road vehicle electrification is doing more harm than good," or "the methodology used by the IPCC to interpret climate data is flawed in ways that make it misleadingly alarmist."
Looked at blogs, scrolled through white papers, looked at video presentations of these kinds...
Yes I have. Yessir, we have no bananas...
A "blog" is just an opinion. "Websites" ? Anonymous ?
You didn't believe them ? We do not believe you either.
You don't get it. Those that agree that human activity that has caused a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is making things much worse, is because they have been indoctrinated.
The same ole Blah Blah Blah. Global Warming causes floods and drought. Record heat and record cold. Stronger hurricanes.
All without proof. None of the Cult's predictions have come true.
What do you think "proof" would be like... apart from what mainstream climate researchers have already produced?
Can you describe more exactly what you mean by "proof"..?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
None of the Cult's predictions have come true.
That's an especially ridiculous assertion, in light of everything that has been reported on this topic.
What has the "cult" predicted that hasn't already been confirmed by data from earth-observing satellites, ocean temperature sensors, ground-based weather observations and the like?
When you say "Record heat and record cold," you are glossing over something of fundamental importance: Averaging temperatures across the globe and over the entire course of each year confirms that the climate is trending warmer on average, and not colder.
The "record cold" that you say is not inconsistent with the "cult's" science, and it's explained very simply in this brief online tutorial:
"NOAA and the terrible, horrible, no good, very hot year"
quote
The government agency confirmed that 2023 was the hottest year on record, adding to other troubling climate superlatives including record ocean heat and record low Antarctic sea ice.
Everyone agrees that climate change has happened [naturally] in the past. But pretty much everyone agrees that human activity that has caused a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere [that] is making things much worse.
It is possible for BOTH of those things to be true. Climate change has happened in the [distant] past—but [now] human activity is making it worse.
That's a good summary of the general consensus about climate among climate scientists.
Where BingB reduces it to "human activity is making things worse," a more exact description would be "human activity is causing the global climate to trend warmer with an abruptness that is over and above what would otherwise be happening, if the warming trend were just a continuation of a natural warmup after the end of the most recent Ice Age."
To summarize some things that I have seen online, there's reason to believe that without the impact of humans, the Earth would not be plunged into another Ice Age before another 50,000 years into the future. That's based on the Earth's orbital parameters, including the Milankovitch Cycle. The impact of humans may have already "cancelled" another Ice Age (talk about "cancel culture"..!) that would have been freezing us now, and that's all to the good.
The problem is now we're overdoing it with the greenhouse gas emissions and other planet-warming human impacts. We're raising the temperature setting on the Earth's thermostat (so to speak) so far and so fast that we are not just canceling Ice Ages, but are going to the other extreme of seriously overheating the Earth.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-05-2024).]
"Two major New York offshore wind projects are back on track"
quote
Offshore wind is critical to [New York State and national climate-friendly energy] goals. After a year of industry setbacks, two projects totaling 1.7 GW of capacity are [now] moving forward.
Originally posted by rinselberg: What do you think "proof" would be like... apart from what mainstream climate researchers have already produced?
Can you describe more exactly what you mean by "proof"..?
Mainstream climate researchers are in bed with mainstream media and the Leftoid government.
What would proof look like ? Did all the ice bergs melt as your godfathers said they would ? Your ilk has made so many claims I forget them. As none have proven true. How many of your ilk said the world would end in X number of years. Other of you ilk revised the doom date calendar. Your ilk always uses gloom and fear predictions.
Screw me once, shame on you. Screw me twice, shame on me. Screw me three times, I must be a leftoid useful idiot. How many times are you going to believe their lies ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-06-2024).]
Mainstream climate researchers are in bed with mainstream media and the Leftoid government.
What would proof look like? Did all the icebergs melt as your godfathers said they would? Your ilk has made so many claims I forget them. As none have proven true. How many of your ilk said the world would end in X number of years. Other of you ilk revised the doom date calendar.
Your ilk always uses gloom and fear predictions.
You keep making s**t up and pretending that serious climate researchers said these things—but they didn't.
Did all the icebergs melt? No. Are the polar icecaps being diminished by global warming? Yes.
"How global warming is diminishing the Earth's polar icecaps, and how the diminishing polar icecaps are accelerating global warming."
Originally posted by rinselberg: You keep making s**t up and pretending that serious climate researchers said these things—but they didn't .
'Ya know rinselberg, mainstream climate researchers really are in bed with mainstream media and the Leftoid government. All your NASA and NOAA links which you claim are the holy grail of Global Warming dogma mean jack **** . All government bureaucrats. You do know what a bureaucrat is don't you ?
bureaucrat: an official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent judgment.
97% of the scientists believed the world was flat.
Tell us rinselberg, why does your ilk have such a hard time convincing the logical 93% into believing your dogma ?
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-06-2024).]
We are literally comparing 140 years of collected data (which is fraught with inaccuracies... AT best), to 3.5 billion years of uncollected Earth temperature data... and we're expected to believe this is actually usable data? Mathematically, we literally only have 0.00000004% of the data.
There is literally no other situation, either technical or scientific, in which these kinds of numbers could be used to justify literally anything. It's so incredibly outside the margin of error as to be feloniously hilarious.
It would be like if you were doing cyber security, and you were collecting PCAP for only 1 second, and then expected to use that as a security baseline for a 100k host network that had been operating for 100s of years. I just... I can't take it seriously.
We are literally comparing 140 years of collected data (which is fraught with inaccuracies... AT best), to 3.5 billion years of uncollected Earth temperature data... and we're expected to believe this is actually usable data? Mathematically, we literally only have 0.00000004% of the data.
There is literally no other situation, either technical or scientific, in which these kinds of numbers could be used to justify literally anything. It's so incredibly outside the margin of error as to be feloniously hilarious.
It would be like if you were doing cyber security, and you were collecting PCAP for only 1 second, and then expected to use that as a security baseline for a 100k host network that had been operating for 100s of years. I just... I can't take it seriously.
You couldn't be more wrong.
You don't understand the issue.
It's not about what the climate could be like even just 1,000 years from now. That's way behind what humans can plan for.
It's about what the climate could be like just 200 years from now, and even more concerning, what the climate could be like in the years immediately ahead, and forward to year 2100.
That's why most of the Earth's 3.5 billion year history is irrelevant. Because too many other things about the planet were radically different when you go that far back, from the major chemical proportions of the atmosphere, to the way that the continents and oceans were arranged around the globe. And way more than just that. You'd be comparing Apples and Oranges.
I've actually posted to this issue before, and not all that long ago. I may be able to find what I posted.
We have—as you say—about 140 years of systematic record keeping of temperatures, but we also have tree rings, historical accounts of the weather itself and of other events, and archaeologic evidence which is revealing about the climate and about sea levels going back about 10,000 years, and we can go even farther back with the chemical analysis of air bubbles trapped in ice sheets, chemical analysis of marine sediments and fossil evidence... "paleoclimatology."
We have a longer history of the Earth's climate than you seem to realize.
This would be a great read for anyone who is suffering from "82-T/A" syndrome when it comes to understanding climate science:
If you scroll past the first two data plots and find the third data plot, you see this:
quote
CARBON DIOXIDE OVER 800,000 YEARS
That's about the limit of how much of the Earth's history is relevant to understanding anthropogenic global warming... only the most recent 800,000 years.
Anything more distant than 800,000 years ago is (mostly) "Apples and Oranges."
THE CULT does not like to spend money to reduce pollution
When I moved to Florida, the Democrats ran the state. It was as solid blue as California is today. The Everglades were a **** -hole... every farm was dumping tons and tons and tons of chemicals into the rivers, Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. It was a disaster. Only after the Republicans came in did we start passing laws to eliminate many (if not most) of the chemical run-off that was allowed during the prior decades of Democrat rule.
The Everglades, and the Florida waterways are now heavily protected, and pristine compared to how they were under Democrats.
And Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA.
It was a beneficial organization until the progressive crazies took it over.....and I speak from 35 years experience in dealing with them. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, NPDES.......
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: When I moved to Florida, the Democrats ran the state. It was as solid blue as California is today. The Everglades were a **** -hole... every farm was dumping tons and tons and tons of chemicals into the rivers, Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. It was a disaster. Only after the Republicans came in did we start passing laws to eliminate many (if not most) of the chemical run-off that was allowed during the prior decades of Democrat rule.
The Everglades, and the Florida waterways are now heavily protected, and pristine compared to how they were under Democrats.
You can't just look at Florida and disregard what happened in other states, and you can't just sweep away the relevance of time. Was it really a transition from Democrats to Republicans in Florida that brought about the reduction in damage to the Everglades from agricultural runoff? Or was it more the case that this was an issue that slowly gained support from Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, until the apathy and the vested agricultural interests were going to be overcome, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans had the upper hand in Florida government and politics?
Anthropogenic global warming is threatening the Everglades now—not with agricultural runoff—but the Everglades are being adversely impacted by higher air temperatures and the generally warmer climate regime, and very specifically, more saltwater intrusion resulting from higher sea levels, and also Everglades-bashing hurricanes that are being "supercharged" by unprecedented heat energy in ocean waters. These are not "your father's" hurricanes—and human-attributable greenhouse gas emissions are the culprit.
As a matter of fact, there is now interest in creating a new "Category Six" to keep up with the increasing strength of hurricanes.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-07-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: When I moved to Florida, the Democrats ran the state. It was as solid blue as California is today. The Everglades were a **** -hole... every farm was dumping tons and tons and tons of chemicals into the rivers, Everglades and Lake Okeechobee. It was a disaster. Only after the Republicans came in did we start passing laws to eliminate many (if not most) of the chemical run-off that was allowed during the prior decades of Democrat rule.
The Everglades, and the Florida waterways are now heavily protected, and pristine compared to how they were under Democrats.
BIG SUGAR SUPPORTS RHONDA the Gop and the rump
they sfwmd just did a end of the dry season FLUSH EVERYBODY IS COMPLAINING IT STINKS chemicals and dead birds SAME AS IT EVERY WAS WHEN THEY OPEN THE GATES [flood control] EXCEPT Gop CONNECTED GOT RICH rigging the system GLADES IS DOOMED BY G W anyway
you ever go out ? see real life ? or 100% fox news BS repeated ?
And Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA.
It was a beneficial organization until the progressive crazies took it over.....and I speak from 35 years experience in dealing with them. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, NPDES.......
crazy's yes rayguns boys spent their time chasing mom and pop shops who could not afford to fight them seldom went near the big boys who could would and did fight back
local boat shop was harassed about oil use on drill bits Gop EPA IN ACTION never mind the gov airports jet fuel leaks in huge amounts for years was the real source
It's FACT CHECK time... was it "conservatives" that deserve the lion's share of the credit for creating the EPA?
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
And Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA.
It was a beneficial organization until the progressive crazies took it over... and I speak from 35 years experience in dealing with them. Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, NPDES.......
That's only part of the story.
quote
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is a sweeping federal law often called the Magna Carta of the nation's environmental laws. The act was the brainchild of Senator Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson (1912-1983), who conceived of the bill in 1968 and shepherded it through his Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and then through the full Senate in 1969. It was passed without significant opposition in the Senate on December 20, 1969, and the House on December 22, 1969, and was signed into law by President Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994) on January 1, 1970,
This year [2012] marks the centennial of the birth of Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, one of the towering figures of American politics in the latter half of the 20th century and the avatar of neoconservatism. A Democrat representing the state of Washington in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until his sudden death in 1983, he deserves to be recalled not only because he merits honor but also because little of today’s politics would be comprehensible without understanding his 30 years in office.
quote
Scoop was the epitome of the liberalism of his day. The two cardinal programmatic ideas of that philosophy were devotion to the “common man” and the conviction that government had nigh limitless power to make people’s lives better.
Back to the article from Jim Kershner at HistoryLInk:
quote
When Nixon signed the bill into law...[t]he New York Times headline read, "Nixon Promises an Urgent Fight to End Pollution" (The New York Times). Whether Nixon grasped the true implications of NEPA are unclear, but it was obvious that he used the bill to advertise his own concern for the environment.
So to say without further elaboration that "Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA" is not very meaningful, in light of the actual history—it was more than just "conservatives."
FACT CHECK result... "Misleading statement about conservatives and the EPA."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-06-2024).]
OK, now this is getting personal! I am almost out of olive oil and suddenly it has gone up by 40% in just over a month. They are blaming climate change, but I know it's Biden's doin'. Ain't funny no more. Cut it out, guldernit!
It's FACT CHECK time... was it "conservatives" that deserve the lion's share of the credit for creating the EPA?
So to say without further elaboration that "Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA" is not very meaningful, in light of the actual history—it was more than just "conservatives."
FACT CHECK result... "Misleading statement about conservatives and the EPA."
I know all of that, I lived it and applauded it. Senator Jackson was a neoconservative. In the present day, I suspect he would be appalled at what the Democratic party has become.
That's about the limit of how much of the Earth's history is relevant to understanding anthropogenic global warming... only the most recent 800,000 years.
Anything more distant than 800,000 years ago is (mostly) "Apples and Oranges."
Apparently it only quoted this... but I read everything else.
I think you're missing my point... definitely... (I'll get to it in a minute)
Even if we compared 140 years to 800,000 years... it's still so far outside the margin of error as to be completely useless. That we've made such grand claims about the climate on such a ridiculous dataset is scientifically inexcusable... and yet, here we are.
And let me also address the 140 years, which you've said we have "...about 140 years of systematic record keeping of temperatures."
There is absolutely nothing systematic about it. As a matter of fact, even the last 20 years of temperature readings have been wildly inaccurate. Land-based temperature sensors consistently get moved, either as a result of construction (the land which it was on is sold and developed), or structures are built up around it... which more often than not will affect the temperature readings. Temperature readings from sensors in the city will always be hotter than the actual ambient temperature because of blacktop, concrete (which absorbs and releases heat), to refraction of the sun. About the only reliable way to measure temperature is via satellite... and that's really only been within the last 10 years.
All of that aside... let's say temperatures are going up. How do we not know this is simply one of many warming / cooling cycles the Earth goes through? You don't...
For me, this is something we cannot change, and the "solution" always seems to taking money from America and giving it to **** -hole countries. We should be smarter, and actually do something that's good for the environment like protecting wetlands, creating a national recycling program, etc. And I don't like the whole "we can do both," because yet again... the carbon credit system is there for no other reason than wealth redistribution.
Originally posted by rinselberg: It's not about what the climate could be like even just 1,000 years from now. That's way behind what humans can plan for.
It's about what the climate could be like just 200 years from now, and even more concerning, what the climate could be like in the years immediately ahead, and forward to year 2100.
What are you planning for 100 years from now ?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: You don't get it.
Those that agree that human activity that has caused a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is making things much worse, is because they have been indoctrinated.
US House Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D) New York, put forward a bill to make kindergartens to teach "Global Warming".
This whole “global warming/climate change” fairy tale is nothing more than an evil scheme to suppress Capitalism, to depress the western economy. The net outcome is the devolution of human civilization.
It is just like the “you are a racist/hitler/(whatever)phobe” mantra chanted by the ill informed stooges of the Aristocracy. Your guilt benefits no one other than your keepers.
Just stop it.
Your leaders are driving all of us back to the dark ages. We need another renaissance.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-07-2024).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: <SNIP> All of that aside... let's say temperatures are going up. How do we not know this is simply one of many warming / cooling cycles the Earth goes through? You don't...
For me, this is something we cannot change, and the "solution" always seems to taking money from America and giving it to **** -hole countries. We should be smarter, and actually do something that's good for the environment like protecting wetlands, creating a national recycling program, etc. And I don't like the whole "we can do both," because yet again... the carbon credit system is there for no other reason than wealth redistribution.
WETLANDS UPDATE
I'm "big" on wetlands! They are an important part of Climate Adaptation, as they physically protect farmland and communities from flooding and storm surge.
They're like giant-sized sheets of Bounty paper towels that soak up water and keep the water from going where it is not wanted to go.
Are they also part of Climate Mitigation? That's more "iffy." They are generally considered to be carbon reservoirs or sinks that remove CO2 or carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but wetlands can also emit CH4 or methane, which is a planet-warming greenhouse gas that is generally ranked as "Number Two" on the EPA's Wanted List of Villainous Greenhouse Gases—second only to carbon dioxide.
These waters (pun intended) are too deep for me to wade into, at this moment, but I can say that Yale Environment 360 is an excellent source of reportage on the science of wetlands and wetlands restoration and how that connects to Climate concerns. As you may well have suspected, Yale Environment 360 is published by the Yale School of the Environment at Yale University.
Some time ago, I posted an article from Yale Environment 360 on this very issue about wetlands, but I don't know if I can find it again. I don't remember the thread. And when I used the Yale Environment 360 search function, I did not see anything that jogged my memory. I could be looking at the title of the article that I posted, without realizing that it is the title of the article that I posted. Nevertheless...
AUGUST 29, 2023. "Biden administration weakens water [including wetlands] protections after Supreme Court curtails federal power"
quote
The Biden administration weakened regulations protecting millions of acres of wetlands Tuesday, saying it had no choice after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s jurisdiction over them.
The rule would require that wetlands be more clearly connected to other waters like oceans and rivers, a policy shift that departs from a half-century of federal rules governing the nation’s waterways.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan said the agency had no alternative after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s power to regulate wetlands that do not have a “continuous surface connection” to larger, regulated bodies of water.
AUGUST 15, 2023 "Biden-Harris Administration makes $240 million available for habitat restoration and coastal resilience through Investing in America agenda"
quote
Today [August 15, 2023,] NOAA Fisheries is announcing the availability of up to $240 million in funding for transformational habitat restoration and coastal resilience projects as part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. Through this funding opportunity, NOAA will support habitat restoration approaches that enhance the resilience of coastal and Great Lakes communities — including tribes and underserved communities — against climate hazards. This announcement comes one day ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate investment in U.S. history.
“The projects selected by NOAA for this exciting funding opportunity will have a transformative impact in coastal and tribal communities nationwide,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. “In turn, they will help sustain our nation’s fisheries, make significant strides in the recovery of threatened and endangered species, improve water quality and protect communities and ecosystems from the impacts of harmful climate change.” . . .
APRIL 2023 "Habitat Protection and Restoration Awards: National Coastal Zone Management Program"
quote
In April 2023, NOAA announced the distribution of $74.4 million in funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act for coastal zone management programs to support coastal habitat restoration [including wetlands] and conservation projects and capacity-building. This includes $50.1 million across 20 projects and $24.3 million to support capacity-building and additional staff to manage these, and to develop impactful projects and carry out other projects, planning, and initiatives to advance the resilience of their coastal communities.
Apparently it only quoted this... but I read everything else.
I think you're missing my point... definitely... (I'll get to it in a minute)
Even if we compared 140 years to 800,000 years... it's still so far outside the margin of error as to be completely useless. That we've made such grand claims about the climate on such a ridiculous dataset is scientifically inexcusable... and yet, here we are.
And let me also address the 140 years, which you've said we have "...about 140 years of systematic record keeping of temperatures."
There is absolutely nothing systematic about it. As a matter of fact, even the last 20 years of temperature readings have been wildly inaccurate. Land-based temperature sensors consistently get moved, either as a result of construction (the land which it was on is sold and developed), or structures are built up around it... which more often than not will affect the temperature readings. Temperature readings from sensors in the city will always be hotter than the actual ambient temperature because of blacktop, concrete (which absorbs and releases heat), to refraction of the sun. About the only reliable way to measure temperature is via satellite... and that's really only been within the last 10 years.
All of that aside... let's say temperatures are going up. How do we not know this is simply one of many warming / cooling cycles the Earth goes through? You don't...
For me, this is something we cannot change, and the "solution" always seems to taking money from America and giving it to **** -hole countries. We should be smarter, and actually do something that's good for the environment like protecting wetlands, creating a national recycling program, etc. And I don't like the whole "we can do both," because yet again... the carbon credit system is there for no other reason than wealth redistribution.
That was quite the diatribe... or is it just a "tribe"..?
Actually, I appreciate that "82-T/A" had the interest and took the time to read through what I posted into this thread just yesterday; to wit:
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but seeing that kind of reading appetite from "82" has me wanting to tempt him to take a look at another recent article that was posted very recently on the RealClimate blog, because I think it talks directly to some of the skepticism that he harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I haven't read through it closely myself, but I've scrolled through it and that's how I see that it talks directly to some of the skepticism that "82" harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming—of course, if someone other than "82" wants to look at it, I really can't stop them.
I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but seeing that kind of reading appetite from "82" has me wanting to tempt him to take a look at another recent article that was posted very recently on the RealClimate blog, because I think it talks directly to some of the skepticism that he harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I haven't read through it closely myself, but I've scrolled through it and that's how I see that it talks directly to some of the skepticism that "82" harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming—of course, if someone other than "82" wants to look at it, I really can't stop them.
I will read your last two links, but respectfully, I do not trust climate.gov as far as I can throw it. I know full well after being in government for over a decade... information is selectively released. It's a very calculated decision. I've actually found some European governments to be more forthcoming in releasing their information than the United States. It has to do with the structure of the government. Let me be clear, I prefer the US structure... but because essentially the "house" or Parliament if you will effectively runs the country, and they "form a government" from that (to select a prime minister, etc.)... there tends to be less "ownership" of the government to the person running it. In the United States... the agencies are effectively "owned" by the President... as they all fall under the Executive Branch, and except in situations where they make a concerted effort to do things against the President's will (like in the case of Trump), they tend to fall all over themselves to support Democrat narratives (as I've personally seen in the intel community). So... Climate.Gov can ... well, you get the gist.
What I will say... I am not saying we aren't warming. We might be. I am also not saying that humans are not causing it... it's very possible that we are.
What I am saying though, is that there is so much corruption in developing these facts, figures, and numbers... in order to produce a narrative, that I question the authenticity of all of it. I find it hard that through all the industrial eras of these countries, we were only increasing seal levels by 1.5mm a year for like 100 years. And then magically in the late 90s, they've deemed this changed to 2.5mm. And then all of a sudden, they say it's 3.9mm... it's suspect. I think the *truth* is probably somewhere in the middle.
I also don't like the prescription, which always seems to boil down to the whole carbon credits thing, which I cannot support. It basically means taking money from the U.S., and giving it to everyone else... while they basically laugh at us and live it up.
todays news was dead fish do to the SFWMD canal gates opening
thanks to rhonda and BIG SUGAR IT STINKS TODD
The amount of chemicals being dumped in the water in South Florida has gone down many orders of magnitude since Republicans took over. The Democrats did NOTHING during their governance. Matter of fact... DeSantis has done more for Florida's environment than any past Florida governor.
And there have have been dozens of other pro-environmental waterway protection acts.
It's exactly like I was saying. Back when Democrats ran Florida... you never thought twice about any of this. All those farms and factories dumping chemicals into the Suwanee river... and you never batted an eye, and the media never talked about it. Once the Republicans started taking over the state (starting in 2000), and then completely by 2012, the environment was the most important thing in the world. All while, Democrats totally ignored the fact that they did little to nothing, and the party even encouraged it. Do you remember... I forget which Democrat Governor it was... he was the former Agriculture Director for the state... basically wholly supported the pineapple / sugarcane industry in dumping chemicals into the waterways.
Dude, you are sooo out there Ray, so completely biased. Anything you say here is wildly hypocritical to reality.
Who are the fear mongering whores who make the fear, doom, and gloom predictions ? Are you one ?
Serious climate researchers are not warning us ? Why are you worried ?
The Earth will be one degree warmer in 100 years ? So what.
avg is 3.5 deg world wide by 2100 fla will be gone as usual you are WRONG
Even if the rate of emissions is slowed enough to limit atmospheric concentrations to about 550 ppm, or roughly double the preindustrial level, the U.S. could experience temperature increases of 5o F to 10o F. These warmer temperatures would lead to soil drying in some regions, with drying estimated at 10 percent to 30 percent for the United States during the summer growing season.
Some modeling experiments have examined the consequences of CO2 levels well beyond 700 ppm, which are likely to occur after 2100 if current emissions trajectories are not altered. If the CO2 concentration were to continue to rise to four times the preindustrial level, or more than 1100 ppm, the estimated temperature increase for the United States would be 15oF to 20oF and soil drying could approach 30 percent to 50 percent during the growing season
A Harvard University geneticist has a vision of bringing back the long extinct Woolly Mammoth of Ice Age lore. He wants to use Jurassic Park-style genetic engineering to resurrect the tusked behemoths—the last of their species having died about 4000 years ago—and set herds of them grazing the tundras, as a way to slow down the pervasive thawing of the Arctic permafrost that is a consequence of of global warming.
quote
A bold plan to genetically engineer a version of the woolly mammoth, the tusked ice age giant that disappeared 4,000 years ago, is making some progress, according to the scientists involved.
The long-term goal is to create a living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner and—if released into its natural habitat in sufficient numbers—could potentially help restore the fragile Arctic tundra ecosystem.
Resurrecting the extinct species has been a pet project of Harvard University geneticist George Church for more than a decade. The plan gained traction in February 2021 when Church cofounded Dallas-based Colossal Biosciences with entrepreneur Ben Lamm and received an infusion of cash and an ensuing glare of publicity later that year.
Many challenging tasks, such as developing an artificial womb capable of gestating a baby elephant, remain. But Colossal Biosciences said on Wednesday that it had made a “momentous step” forward.
Church and Eriona Hysolli, Colossal’s head of biological sciences, revealed they had reprogrammed cells from an Asian elephant, the mammoth’s closest living relative, into an embryonic state—the first time stem cells have been derived from elephant cells. The team plans to publish the work in a scientific journal, but the research hasn’t yet undergone peer review.
<SNIP>
Colossal [Biosciences] has longed claimed that mammoths, should they return to the grasslands in the planet’s northernmost reaches in sufficient numbers, would help slow down permafrost thaw.
Some scientists believe that, before their extinction, grazing animals such as mammoths, horses and bison kept the earth frozen underneath by tramping down the grass, knocking down trees and compacting snow.
One small study in Siberia published in 2020 suggested that the presence of large mammals such as horses, bison, yak and reindeer resulted in lower soil temperatures in the protected area where they were kept compared with land outside that boundary. However, it’s hard to imagine herds of cold-adapted elephants making a significant impact on a region [the Arctic] that’s warming faster than anywhere else [on the planet,] other experts have said.
A "first"... Feds charge San Diego resident with illegal importation of Greenhouse Gases from Mexico.
quote
It’s the first prosecution in the U.S. to include charges related to a 2020 law that prohibits the importation of hydrofluorocarbons. . . . The indictment alleges Michael Hart, of San Diego, smuggled the ozone-depleting [and planet-warming] chemicals across the border concealed under a tarp and tools in his vehicle. He posted them for sale on the internet, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
