What a relief

[Hans Blaster]

I am sure you are well equipped to handle the concerns of the world.

I clearly understand the climate system and human impacts better than you do. I don't really care about waiting out the endtimes that I don't think are coming.

 

[Postvieww]

Oh yeah the vicious left wing has it personally in for you.

No, not me personally just everyone who disagrees with them!

 

[Postvieww]

I clearly understand the climate system and human impacts better than you do. I don't really care about waiting out the endtimes that I don't think are coming.

Of course you think that. I have yet to run into a liberal that didn't THINK they were smarter than conservatives.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course you think that. I have yet to run into a liberal that didn't THINK they were smarter than conservatives.

It's not about "liberal" or "conservative" its about my (somewhat rusty) training in climate science and deep familiarity with numerical simulations.

 

[Postvieww]

I don't really care about waiting out the endtimes that I don't think are coming.

I don't think your climate doom is coming either so I guess we are even.

 

[Postvieww]

It's not about "liberal" or "conservative" its about my (somewhat rusty) training in climate science and deep familiarity with numerical simulations.

Since you are good with numbers tell us how carbon credits will help?

 

[dlamberth]

Man WILL NOT destroy this planet that is a fact.

Your right that the rock we call Earth will be here long after we make it uninhabitable for human beings and other living creatures.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Since you are good with numbers tell us how carbon credits will help?

Which policy is that? I know the science much better than the policy solutions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your right that the rock we call Earth will be here long after we make it uninhabitable for human beings and other living creatures.

That's not gonna happen.

Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

That's a promise from the Creator himself.

 

[Lukaris]

Is it possible that advanced, small, modular (nuclear), reactors ( SMR) could make much of these “green” initiatives unnecessary?

Rolls-Royce’s SMR Needs 10,000 Times Less Land Than Wind Energy, Proves ‘Iron Law Of Power Density’

Rolls-Royce's new SMR will need 10,000 times less land than a wind project and about 1,000 times less land than a solar project. The SMR proves the Iron Law of Power Density, which says the lower the power density, the higher the resource intensity.

www.forbes.com

Advanced Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Information on advanced small modular reactors and the Department of Energy's Small Modular Reactor Licensing Technical Support (SMR-LTS) Program.

www.energy.gov

.

 

[Postvieww]

Which policy is that? I know the science much better than the policy solutions.

So you admit to knowledge of accepted (so called) science but not how governments use this (so called) crisis for monetary gain!

Carbon credits allow entities to buy the right to emit C02. So that begs the question, if we are on the verge of annihilation why would any responsible government sell the right to pollute the earth? Control and money just what I have been claiming here all along.

 

[Postvieww]

Your right that the rock we call Earth will be here long after we make it uninhabitable for human beings and other living creatures.

You are wrong ,man will never make this planet uninhabitable. You are free to believe that, but it will not happen. See post #110

 

[dlamberth]

You are wrong ,man will never make this planet uninhabitable. You are free to believe that, but it will not happen. See post #110

I'd rather look at the science as well as what's actually happening to the Earth....for all to see.

 

[dlamberth]

What I wonder is after this human caused extinction what life forms will evolved in the new environment.

 

[Postvieww]

I'd rather look at the science as well as what's actually happening to the Earth....for all to see.

By all means knock yourself out. Accepted science many times has later been proven to be wrong.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you admit to knowledge of accepted (so called) science but not how governments use this (so called) crisis for monetary gain!

argh.

Carbon credits allow entities to buy the right to emit C02. So that begs the question, if we are on the verge of annihilation why would any responsible government sell the right to pollute the earth? Control and money just what I have been claiming here all along.

Purchase from whom? Is this one of those "carbon offset" scams?

 

[sjastro]

The Myth That Hurricanes Are Getting Worse (Because of Climate Change)

Despite what you may have heard, climate change is not actually causing more hurricanes—activity has actually been decreasing slightly since 1900, data from the American Meteorological Society show. That is only half of the story, however.

fee.org

You obviously did not understand the nature of my post which was in response to this.

Believe the climate doomsday message or you are a “climate change denier “ take the unproven vaccine or you are a “vaccine denier “ don’t question the 2020 election or you are an “election denier “ are we starting to see a pattern here? Mention facts about race and you are a “racist”, speak against abortion and you are against “women’s rights”, try get inappropriate content out of school libraries and you are “book burner”, try to protect young children from being sexually indoctrinated in school and you are a “homophob” or “LGBT hater “. Try to stand up for gun rights and you want children murdered. Are we starting to see s pattern here.

Your post is illogical because of its lavish use of false equivalences and victim card playing which in no way provides an assessment on the validity or otherwise of AGW.

Then there is your link.
If you had a knowledge of climate science you would have noted the ignorance or disgraceful dishonesty of the article because it makes no reference to the effects of El Nino which reduces the severity and frequency of Atlantic hurricanes despite AGW.
Note in the Pacific ocean region the very opposite occurs which is conveniently ignored in the article...........

The rank stupidity of this right wing article is highlighted by the following quote.

Better infrastructure, fed by improved technology and wealth, does more to protect lives and property than cutting carbon emissions.

 

[Frank Robert]

For the umpteenth time I have not said it was benign, I have said it has been happening throughout history without the aid of mankind.

Thanks for verifying that current climate change is man made

Coming to a conclusion from the past 100 years or so is not very scientific when considering 1000's of years.

You fail to understand that present climate change is due to the cumulative effect of fossil fuel pollution. Prior to the industrial revolution fossil fuels pollution was not a problem.

Source?

I was referring to actively publishing climate scientists. I apologize for not being more precise.

Do scientists agree on climate change?​

Yes, the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change. Most of the leading science organizations around the world have issued public statements expressing this, including international and U.S. science academies, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and a whole host of reputable scientific bodies around the world. A list of these organizations is provided here.​

How long does it take carbon dioxide to leave the atmosphere?

Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years, including chemical weathering and rock formation.​

 

[Frank Robert]

By all means knock yourself out. Accepted science many times has later been proven to be wrong

Basic logical flaws​

But more than just being a complete misrepresentation of science, claiming that "science was wrong before" is flawed at even the basic logical level. First, this phrase can be considered a non sequitur or red herring because it usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, that phlogiston was wrong has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct, and whether neutrinos may travel faster than light has absolutely no relevance to homeopathy,[2] as that is already governed by a certain evidence base.​

​

This is also a false dichotomy; someone using the argument is apparently suggesting that all science and rationalist thought must be perfectly correct the first time or their selected woo-du-jour must be correct. Using a reductio ad absurdum, the argument can apply to any and all forms of science and technology. (If hypotheses and theories which have been tested time and time again and been proven correct can be "wrong", what does that say about unproven, or even disproven, claims?) Therefore, there would be no way to test the validity of any claims, at all. But no one would say, "I'm not going to drive in a car! Science has been wrong before!" If "science has been wrong", and this disproves the effectiveness of earwax, doubly does it disprove the effectiveness of ear candles.​

​

For these reasons, "science was wrong before" is an objection that is not even wrong, and tends to be used as a last-ditch escape hatch when the crank has run out of concrete objections or talking points.​

 

[Bradskii]

The Myth That Hurricanes Are Getting Worse (Because of Climate Change)

Despite what you may have heard, climate change is not actually causing more hurricanes—activity has actually been decreasing slightly since 1900, data from the American Meteorological Society show. That is only half of the story, however.

fee.org

The link shows the number of hurricanes. Which is generally accepted to be steady. The intensity is a different matter. Here's a chart showing the intensity: Hurricanes and Climate Change

It's obvious that it has increased significantly in the last 25 years as compared to the previous 45 years.
1950 - 95 11 above normal (45 years)
1996 - 22 17 above normal (17 years)

In addition:

'Over the 39-year period from 1979-2017, the number of major hurricanes has increased while the number of smaller hurricanes has decreased. Based on modeling, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts an increase in Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, alongside increased hurricane wind speeds.'

And warmer sea temps result in 'wetter' storms. Sydney experienced it's wettest year on record last year, passing the previous record with 3 months of the year still to go.