Toronto Escorts

Can anyone see that Climate Change is all about money?

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,698
17,860
113
Did you even read this article? https://mashable.com/feature/climate-change-future-22nd-century/ It sounds like the end of the world to me. At least thats how myself and many other people look at it as well. Thats how you climate believers see it too.

Umm, scientists stated that if the earth continues to warm, people, animals, plants etc. will cease to exist. Wouldnt you think its the end of civilization (the world) at that point?

What do you think (other than the earth blowing up) the end of the world means to you?
That's the difference between we work our asses off to keep warming to 1.5ºC or listen to people like you and live with 4-6ºC warming to the planets temp.
Now that you've seen the reports, which one do you think we should aim for?
 

Fathammer

Banned
Mar 9, 2018
961
0
0
That's the difference between we work our asses off to keep warming to 1.5ºC or listen to people like you and live with 4-6ºC warming to the planets temp.
Now that you've seen the reports, which one do you think we should aim for?
Ok, so you wont tell me what the world ending means according to your definition... ok.

Anyway, the more civilization has advanced, the more cleaner we got.

No more HFC, CFC, etc.
No more pouring our used oil into sewers
No more lead in our gasoline
No more throwing ALL garbage into 1 bag


We know have:

Efficient cars
natural gas fireplaces
propane BBQs
recycling
water saving products
phosphorus free detergents
all types of environmental awareness groups
smart meters
LED lighting
solar panels, wind farms
recycled road surfaces
products made from recyclables
efficient furnaces

AND WE ARE GETTING DIRTIER AND WARMER??????????????????????????

I think someone isnt seeing the common sense.

Did you know every time a rocket goes into space it emits toxic plumes of exhaust? Govt doesnt stop that.
Do you know how toxic plane exhaust is yet govt doesnt curb air travel?
Do you know what salt on our streets do to our lakes and health and nobody cries about that?
Do you know what it costs to heat and cool parliament and the mansion on 24 Sussex dr?
Do you know we export lumber by cutting down our forests that absorb CO2?
Did you know that when you pave over green spaces you get flooding?
Did you know that downtown cores are warmer than the country?

So, why are we warming or getting dirtier?
 

Fathammer

Banned
Mar 9, 2018
961
0
0
When you at last imaginary produce the words of whatever 'they' has you trembling in fear, then perhaps I can help with your comprehension. But no one can explain or defend anything you haven't quoted or cited; only you know who 'they' might be.

The one person I know who said the planet we call the earth will cease to exist in 2100 is the Fathammer I'm wasting time responding to. As for your new tune: Even a child knows there are costs for trying to live in your messes without cleaning up after yourself.

Indeed you are using messed up logic and language all your own, not worth the effort to help you straighten out. I'll leave you to it.
------
PS: Your article is an interesting read; it's unfortunate you so badly mis-represented it. Not that I care about the answer, but every aspect he talks about has already cost people living today, and will cost future generations more. Did you really imagine There Is Any Such Thing As A Free Lunch?

TANSTAAFL.
The point of the story is to show that there is a magic number associated with climate change. The year 2100 is far enough away for most of us today to not see it happen but close enough for us to feel guilty and scared about it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,698
17,860
113
Ok, so you wont tell me what the world ending means according to your definition... ok.

Anyway, the more civilization has advanced, the more cleaner we got.

No more HFC, CFC, etc.
No more pouring our used oil into sewers
No more lead in our gasoline
No more throwing ALL garbage into 1 bag


We know have:

Efficient cars
natural gas fireplaces
propane BBQs
recycling
water saving products
phosphorus free detergents
all types of environmental awareness groups
smart meters
LED lighting
solar panels, wind farms
recycled road surfaces
products made from recyclables
efficient furnaces

AND WE ARE GETTING DIRTIER AND WARMER??????????????????????????

I think someone isnt seeing the common sense.

Did you know every time a rocket goes into space it emits toxic plumes of exhaust? Govt doesnt stop that.
Do you know how toxic plane exhaust is yet govt doesnt curb air travel?
Do you know what salt on our streets do to our lakes and health and nobody cries about that?
Do you know what it costs to heat and cool parliament and the mansion on 24 Sussex dr?
Do you know we export lumber by cutting down our forests that absorb CO2?
Did you know that when you pave over green spaces you get flooding?
Did you know that downtown cores are warmer than the country?

So, why are we warming or getting dirtier?
Ok, mr obvious.

Climate change is happening because we are still pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
And for every environmental group trying there are groups of conservatives like you likely driving SUV's and drinking bottled water while you throw your trash out the window while you drive.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
; said:
Useless debating with the "Climate Change Deniers". They are a tiny minority who will always consider it to be a hoax and a conspiracy theory. Even the Conservative Government distances itself from them although it needs their support.


You can show them all the real Scientific evidence, but they will fall prey to the online far right Climate Change Conspiracy Theorists.
It is about survival.



No way in hell there can possibly be global warming with all the fossil fuels burnt everyday, greenhouse gases emitted etc. right?
Put that on your tombstone so your grandchildren can understand why they are living in hell on earth.
Even Trump has moved on from Climate change is a chinese hoax to clmate change is real but it is China's fault.
I wonder if the oil and gas industry has any financial motives on this issue....Duh!


Decades back when scientists first saw and reported the close co-relation between rising global temperatures and overall CO₂ in the atmosphere, the big oil companies were enthusiastic participants in the research and conferences. Their C-suite guys saw the money to be made as fossil fuel prices would be forced up supply scarcity and regulation. And they'd be well placed to transition to cleaner sources.

But those higher prices also made costly enterprises like mining dirty tar-sands bitumen profitable, and they made drilling for a mile sideways and pulverizing whole rock formations to get get some natural gas into a saleable proposition. Suddenly there was a glut of fossil-fuel they needed to sell, and profit from — as long as they kept prices high. And kept their dirty-energy bandwagon hitched to the right political horses. They still send observers to those meetings though; when you harvest what you didn't grow, you know your good days are limited.

We could hope that 'our' governments would coerce them into sourcing those supplies cleanly without making what's already bad even worse, but the poisoned rivers, swamp-festering open pits and eroded clearcuts we've inherited from centuries past should be enough evidence to convince us they won't. .Not when Big Coal, Oil, Gas, Lumber, Steel, … gets closer to the pols than people ever do.



That's the difference between we work our asses off to keep warming to 1.5ºC or listen to people like you and live with 4-6ºC warming to the planets temp.
Now that you've seen the reports, which one do you think we should aim for?

Ok, mr obvious.

Climate change is happening because we are still pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.
And for every environmental group trying there are groups of conservatives like you likely driving SUV's and drinking bottled water while you throw your trash out the window while you drive.

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf


A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.


To be continued on below post.
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily.

July 3, 2019
Source:
Kobe University
Summary:
New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm


New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an "umbrella effect."

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth's last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth's climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth's climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

In the Chinese Loess Plateau, just south of the Gobi Desert near the border of Mongolia, dust has been transported for 2.6 million years to form loess layers -- sediment created by the accumulation of wind-blown silt -- that can reach up to 200 meters in thickness. If the wind gets stronger, the coarse particles are carried further, and larger amounts are transported. Focusing on this phenomenon, the research team proposed that winter monsoons became stronger under the umbrella effect of increased cloud cover during the geomagnetic reversal. They investigated changes in particle size and accumulation speed of loess layer dust in two Loess Plateau locations.

In both locations, for about 5000 years during the geomagnetic reversal 780,000 years ago, they discovered evidence of stronger winter monsoons: particles became coarser, and accumulation speeds were up to > 3 times faster. These strong winter monsoons coincide with the period during the geomagnetic reversal when the Earth's magnetic strength fell to less than ¼, and galactic cosmic rays increased by over 50%. This suggests that the increase in cosmic rays was accompanied by an increase in low-cloud cover, the umbrella effect of the clouds cooled the continent, and Siberian high atmospheric pressure became stronger. Added to other phenomena during the geomagnetic reversal -- evidence of an annual average temperature drop of 2-3 degrees Celsius, and an increase in annual temperature ranges from the sediment in Osaka Bay -- this new discovery about winter monsoons provides further proof that the climate changes are caused by the cloud umbrella effect.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."


Story Source:

Materials provided by Kobe University.

Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

. http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_kobe_en/NEWS/news/2019_07_03_01.html


Journal Reference:

Yusuke Ueno, Masayuki Hyodo, Tianshui Yang, Shigehiro Katoh. Intensified East Asian winter monsoon during the last geomagnetic reversal transition. Scientific Reports, 2019; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-45466-8


Cite This Page:
MLA
APA
Chicago
Kobe University. "Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal: Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 July 2019.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm


To be continued below post
 

PornAddict

Active member
Aug 30, 2009
3,620
0
36
60
The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.




The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries'
populations.


Image source: NASA

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to "remake the U.S. economy" would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective — based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”

Which leads the scientists to state further:


“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.

And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:

This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.

Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."




"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study) — including AOC's call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it's too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And "too late" that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future "global warming Armageddon" as the currently in vogue highly politicized "science" of activists and congress members alike claims.
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,698
17,860
113
NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf


A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.


To be continued on below post.
Your research paper starts from a faulty premise.
Global temps have increased about 1ºC over the last century, not 0.1ºC.

Better start over.
 

HungSowel

Well-known member
Mar 3, 2017
2,706
1,619
113
Basically the paper is saying that using modern datasets of cosmic rays vs cloud cover does not support their retarded cloud cover theory so they looked 800k years in the past and found a datapoint that might support their retarded cloud cover theory.
 

oldjones

CanBarelyRe Member
Aug 18, 2001
24,495
11
38
Your research paper starts from a faulty premise.
Global temps have increased about 1ºC over the last century, not 0.1ºC.

Better start over.
And the place to start is: What can we do to adapt? Not 'whose 'fault' is climate change, Our's or Nature's?'.

Either way, it's happening.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,698
17,860
113
And the place to start is: What can we do to adapt? Not 'whose 'fault' is climate change, Our's or Nature's?'.

Either way, it's happening.
Yup.

Now there are lots of stories like these, where increased heat is killing off chickens in Nigeria.
https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/roast-chicken-climate-change-farming-nigeria-190712154410790.html
That's the slow damages to food and crop supplies that are starting to really effect people.

The arctic has been slowly losing ice over the last half century. Now Antarctica has lost as much ice as the Arctic has in the last 30 years over the last 4 years.
https://theconversation.com/arctic-...rring-in-the-south-could-be-even-worse-119822
 

Fathammer

Banned
Mar 9, 2018
961
0
0
The geography puts Nigeria around deserst. Far Northern Nigeria comprises one part of the Sahel, the transitional region between the tropical forests and savannas of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahara Desert.

With that type of geography, Im pretty sure its HOT there.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
80,698
17,860
113
The geography puts Nigeria around deserst. Far Northern Nigeria comprises one part of the Sahel, the transitional region between the tropical forests and savannas of Sub-Saharan Africa and the Sahara Desert.

With that type of geography, Im pretty sure its HOT there.
And thus, fathammer sums up his entire knowledge of geography and climate change.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts