Miami Meteorologists rebukes DeSantis for scrubbing climate change from state law

[durangodawood]

I wouldn’t expect you would or could.

Of course, you must be young because you probably never read “The Population Bomb”

You have never heard of earth overshoot day? The problem is that often the panicked are young and inexperienced. A few are old and ignorant.

Predicting the timing of peak oil - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Wrong again. You think throwing a label at something makes it so.

This is argument by attitude.

It fails to address what the data is telling us about current conditions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Nice BBQ for Memorial Day

 

[rambot]

Humans have been doing this for a long time, as have animals and volcanoes (albeit also blocking out much of the sun's energy).

My emphasis. That seems like a knee jerk, ill thought out response becaues it's ridiculously false.
Look at when CO2 started to increase: It was when humans started burning coal.....started driving cars.

Re: Volcanos. The entire volcano output is 1/60s of Man's output when you compare yearly averages of both so. Try again?

At one time, the planet was warm enough that Antarctica was covered with forests.

Oh you mean Pangea? When it was also at the equator? I'm not surprised. And what bearing does that have on humanity, 260million years later given the different circumstances FOR that temperature change?

You give humans way too much credit.

Did you forget the ozone hole? That was exclusively the fault of humans.

Climate change is agenda-driven rather than scientifically driven.

If that was the case, there would be no

And the alarmists have been wrong time and time again.

Depends on how you define "alarmists". The ocean levels ARE rising; that can't be denied. The ocean levels have not risen 4 ft in 20 years, that's true. I mean, I've heard some claims that I have thought were ridiculous for sure.

We can't even be sure how the climate will affect the planet;

What does this mean? What would be a circumstance you think we couldn't predict it?

it is a guessing game, and those who want power always guess in favor of the apocalypse to the point of driving the weak-minded mad enough to glue themselves to highways.

Yeah. There are a lot of people who are very worried about their future for sure. Do I think it is dire for them? Maybe. But would bet it will be dire for their children (those who have them).

They buy the crap "science" of consensus and start behaving irrationally because folks like you have convinced them that the sky, indeed, is falling.

Mercy, you've demonstrated 0 understanding of any of the science related to this topic so I'm not overly worried about your labels.

It's important to consider that CO2 molecules promote biospheric growth, and nature always tends towards balance.

SQUIRREL!

Let's try that again.
CO2 molecules trap heat in their bonds.
Either DENY that as BAD science, or accept it.

What exactly constitutes the Earth's natural climate? Is it reflective of the 1st century AD, the Cambrian period, or even the Ice Age? Let's have a realistic discussion and avoid promoting the agenda of the "elites."

Nonsequitor.
I asked if you agreed the BASIC premises that climate change and global warming are build on. One of those is the KNOWLEDGE that CO2 bonds trap heat in them.
It's a simple agree or disagree situation.

This is an example of how the alarmists use facts to spread panic.

Ok. It sounds to me like you agree with this one. I'm looking forward to a thought filled critique.

An incomplete statement such as this seems to support the anti-capitalist agenda and the regulation of technological advancement.

It is not an incomplete statement. Don't lie. It's the basic premise. I'm not even blaming it on humans. But the idea that the gases are NOT increasing is simply wrong.

But the truth is.

FINALLY! And here i've been reading science research when I should have just come to CF!

Science has uncovered direct evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the upper atmosphere have increased unprecedentedly for at least the last 800,000 years.

Pssssst! I think you need a source for that. I haven't seen anything that specifically and explicitly states what you say (I've seen we have the highest levels of CO2 in our atmosphere in 800,000 years, but nothing about "upper" and nothing about "increased unprecedentedly")

I mean, presumably you know none of this (since you don't share anything of import):
1) Which level of the atmosphere specifically
2) What impact does it ACTUALLY have?
3) Where does the CO2 come from?
4) How did it get there?
5) How does/Why does it stay there?

You just kinda dropped something YOU seem to feel is a single sentence that, on it's own, is able to dismantle all of the AGW worry. But you don't actually do anything to support your point, nor (it seems) have you made the correct point to begin with.

Also, the ONLY reason CO2 is a problem in the UPPER atmosphere is because of the SAME characteristics that make it a problem in the LOWER atmosphere.

So we have quite a job ahead of walking that back.

But you don't even know the implications of that CO2. It's a Dunning Kruger writ large. You are throwing away ALL of AGW, despite the fact that 0 scientists are doing so, all because you heard a single scientific fact.

Hint: It ain't going to happen even though modern Marxists salivate at the idea of a totalitarian one-world Government, and climate fear is the perfect tool to attempt to achieve such a goal.

It isn't going to happen because it means nothing actually.

Climate change has been inevitable since our planet emerged with an atmosphere of hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today's atmosphere.

Yes. BEFORE plants even existed. Perhaps you'd feel better living in a world with those conditions but humanity as a whole, does not.

This climate hysteria is silly, bordering on idiotic, and those banging the drum for changes that will have little to no effect on it range from the "truly useful idiots" to the devious power brokers.

It will look that way if you don't understand the issue, for sure.

 

[Mercy Shown]

My emphasis. That seems like a knee jerk, ill thought out response becaues it's ridiculously false.
Look at when CO2 started to increase: It was when humans started burning coal.....started driving cars.

Of course, you do. But you're mistaken; carbon has been increasing in the atmosphere for the last 800,000 years Before that it decreased. You are stuck on humans to the exclusion of all other contributing factors. And you are under the illusion that the world will come together to solve this problem.

Re: Volcanos. The entire volcano output is 1/60s of Man's output when you compare yearly averages of both so. Try again?

You are stuck looking at the small picture. Throughout the earth's history, it has been volcanoes, hands down.

Oh, you mean Pangea? When was it also at the equator? I'm not surprised. And what bearing does that have on humanity, 260 million years later, given the different circumstances for that temperature change?

You need to gain a bit more education on this matter. It’s fascinating! Approximately 90 million years ago, during the mid-Cretaceous Period, Antarctica was home to a lush rainforest. This ancient forest flourished within about 1,000 kilometers of the South Pole, which is quite remarkable!

Did you forget the ozone hole? That was exclusively the fault of humans.

While human-made chemicals are the primary cause, natural processes also contribute to ozone layer fluctuations. These include:
Volcanoes can inject large quantities of particles and gases into the stratosphere, which can have short-term effects on ozone levels.
Changes in solar radiation can influence ozone creation and destruction cycles.

If that was the case, there would be no


Depends on how you define "alarmists". The ocean levels ARE rising; that can't be denied. The ocean levels have not risen 4 ft in 20 years, that's true. I mean, I've heard some claims that I have thought were ridiculous for sure.

About 9 inches in the last 140 years. It rose significantly more when the sea covered the land bridge from Russia to Alaska.

What does this mean? What would be a circumstance you think we couldn't predict it?


Yeah. There are a lot of people who are very worried about their future for sure. Do I think it is dire for them? Maybe. But would bet it will be dire for their children (those who have them).

No, the planet will survive, and humans will do what they always do: adapt.

Mercy, you've demonstrated 0 understanding of any of the science related to this topic so I'm not overly worried about your labels.

I have exhibited far superior knowledge to what you post. It is just that much of it can not pierce your programming.

SQUIRREL!

Let's try that again.
CO2 molecules trap heat in their bonds.
Either DENY that as BAD science, or accept it.

They absorb photons, releasing some back to Earth and some to outer space. However, as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so does the biosphere, which converts CO2 back to carbon and oxygen.

Nonsequitor.
I asked if you agreed the BASIC premises that climate change and global warming are build on. One of those is the KNOWLEDGE that CO2 bonds trap heat in them.
It's a simple agree or disagree situation.

The trap photons. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas.

Ok. It sounds to me like you agree with this one. I'm looking forward to a thought filled critique.

It is not an incomplete statement. Don't lie. It's the basic premise. I'm not even blaming it on humans. But the idea that the gases are NOT increasing is simply wrong.

Who said they weren't? But who says they will continue to increase at a steady state?

FINALLY! And here i've been reading science research when I should have just come to CF!


Pssssst! I think you need a source for that. I haven't seen anything that specifically and explicitly states what you say (I've seen we have the highest levels of CO2 in our atmosphere in 800,000 years, but nothing about "upper" and nothing about "increased unprecedentedly")

No, not even close. From the Smithsonian on the earth's early atmosphere: "It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere."

I mean, presumably you know none of this (since you don't share anything of import):
1) Which level of the atmosphere specifically
2) What impact does it ACTUALLY have?
3) Where does the CO2 come from?
4) How did it get there?
5) How does/Why does it stay there?

You just kinda dropped something YOU seem to feel is a single sentence that, on it's own, is able to dismantle all of the AGW worry. But you don't actually do anything to support your point, nor (it seems) have you made the correct point to begin with.

Have you heard of Google? Yes? Then use it.

Also, the ONLY reason CO2 is a problem in the UPPER atmosphere is because of the SAME characteristics that make it a problem in the LOWER atmosphere.

But you don't even know the implications of that CO2. It's a Dunning Kruger writ large. You are throwing away ALL of AGW, despite the fact that 0 scientists are doing so, all because you heard a single scientific fact.

No, I have heard the BS about climate change probably before you got out of diapers. Climate change happens. It always has, and it always will. Are you a believer in the bible? What does that have to say about seed time and harvest?

It isn't going to happen because it means nothing actually.

Yes. BEFORE plants even existed. Perhaps you'd feel better living in a world with those conditions but humanity as a whole, does not.

No one knows what the conditions will be like. Meteorologists can't even get predictions that are correct day to day.

Read your history on this. Go ahead and study it out and see how wrong these predictions have been. But that doesn't matter because it has become the religion of the new atheists.

It will look that way if you don't understand the issue, for sure.

You are way too cocksure.

 

[Mercy Shown]

This is argument by attitude.

It fails to address what the data is telling us about current conditions.

Nonsense, I have addressed it over and over, but you can't break the programming. Those who worship at the temples of climate change will not risk studying the history of it. They will not even be able to discern what I am saying.

 

[Adam56]

I’m shaking in my boots.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I’m shaking in my boots.

It doesn't say humanity will be wiped out in five years. Nor does it accurately represent what the climate scientist actually said.

The [original Forbes] article makes no mention of Anderson having said humanity would be wiped out by 2023. Rather, he said the world must stop using fossil fuels by 2023, or the effect on the polar ice caps would be irreversible.

 

[durangodawood]

View attachment 348793

I’m shaking in my boots.

Embarrassing.

1. As much as I admire her passion, anyone who considers Greta T an authoritative representative of the science is woefully misled.

2. The guy who wrote the tweet cant even represent what shes actually saying. And that seems to fly right over your head.

 

[Adam56]

Embarrassing.

1. As much as I admire her passion, anyone who considers Greta T an actual authority on the science is woefully misled.

2. The guy who wrote the tweet cant even represent what shes actually saying. And that seems to fly right over your head.

I know exactly what she’s saying, and she’s wrong.

 

[Adam56]

It doesn't say humanity will be wiped out in five years. Nor does it accurately represent what the climate scientist actually said.

The [original Forbes] article makes no mention of Anderson having said humanity would be wiped out by 2023. Rather, he said the world must stop using fossil fuels by 2023, or the effect on the polar ice caps would be irreversible.

I understand and I’m saying it’s wrong. You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.

 

[durangodawood]

I know exactly what she’s saying, and she’s wrong.

So youre making fun of the guy who says we have 11 days? or what?

If you know what shes saying then you can see right away what a fool hes made of himself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wouldn’t expect you would or could.

Of course, you must be young because you probably never read “The Population Bomb”

You have never heard of earth overshoot day? The problem is that often the panicked are young and inexperienced. A few are old and ignorant.

Predicting the timing of peak oil - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

None of these have anything to do with how young you think I am.

But more impartantly, they don't have anything to do with greenhouse gas induced climate change. At all.

Wrong again. You think throwing a label at something makes it so.

It's obvious you don't know anything about climatology. I do.

 

[Adam56]

So youre making fun of the guy who says we have 11 days? or what?

If you know what shes saying then you can see right away what a fool hes made of himself.

No, she is still wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

No, she is still wrong.

Argument by celebrity.

There must be a name for this sort of fallacy.

 

[rambot]

Of course, you do. But you're mistaken; carbon has been increasing in the atmosphere for the last 800,000 years

You've said that 3 times and provided no citation of this. There's no reason for me to address it.

Before that it decreased.

yes. And before that it increased and before that it decreased, ad nauseam. Because carbon works in cycles. It has for billions of years. And those cycles lasted tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And they were of various sizes.
But none of them compare to our current numbers and time scale.
They just don't. Yes, the earth's old states were...tempetuous, I know. The earth has been WAY hotter and WAY colder than now. But of course remember: That doesn't really mean anything other than, what we had already confirmed: Carbon and climates are cyclical.

You are stuck on humans to the exclusion of all other contributing factors. And you are under the illusion that the world will come together to solve this problem.

Oh no! I'm definitely not! I totally under stand that the rotting from bogs, from flesh and vegetation on land. From gases released from the seas and volcanos. I am pretty comfortable accepting that ALL of these add to the carbon cycle. I ALSO know the things that take carbon OUT the cycle.

IF you remember that oil deposits and and fossil fuels are actually old carbon sinks of long dead organic matter? Dead trees swamps, dinosaurs, all that stuff, pressed for hundreds of millions of years. Then it turns into oil and humans pump it out of the ground.

For hundreds of millions of years, that carbon was trapped underground and wasn't affecting the atmosphere in any way. But once humans release it, the natural cycles HAD to absorb it (see the chicken analogy later...same thing)

You are stuck looking at the small picture. Throughout the earth's history, it has been volcanoes, hands down.

Why would I consider the whole of Earth's history? You can compare the last 200years to the last any chunk of time you like.

You need to gain a bit more education on this matter. It’s fascinating! Approximately 90 million years ago, during the mid-Cretaceous Period, Antarctica was home to a lush rainforest. This ancient forest flourished within about 1,000 kilometers of the South Pole, which is quite remarkable!

Yeah. I'm not that big into that branch of science. I think it's pretty cool. I live pretty near the Royal Tyrell Museum and have visited it a few times and the Phil Currie Museum is not so bad either. It's fascinating stuff, I can just never be bothered to remember it too well I Guess.

While human-made chemicals are the primary cause, natural processes also contribute to ozone layer fluctuations.

Yes but those fluctuations are natural.

To exaggerate but demonstrate:

I'm biking and trying to carry this table (This version of me is 20 and stupid alright). It's hard to balance but over time, I realize that any fluctuation can get dealt with by minor adustment before it goes on balance again.
Then my friend comes over and throws a chicken on the table. It's not that heavy but the extra weight is just enough to throw me off balance and crash me.
CFCs are the thrown chicken....but the world isn't going to crash. The whole in the ozone just got bigger. Until industry and govt. worked together to cut the BIGGEST impactors.
Ozone is doing better now.
Your previous argument that humans could NOT possibly affect the planet can be dismissed. We affected it AND then basically fixed it (by affecting it again!

These include:
Volcanoes can inject large quantities of particles and gases into the stratosphere, which can have short-term effects on ozone levels.
Changes in solar radiation can influence ozone creation and destruction cycles.

About 9 inches in the last 140 years. It rose significantly more when the sea covered the land bridge from Russia to Alaska.

How long did it take to rise back then? What was the RATE of that loss. Let me know if you need a back of the napkin try at calculating. The issue is not the increase, it's the rate.

Yes it's raising but if you are going to compare the RANGE of numbers from an ice age, of course you should compare rate.

And of course, when there was a land bridge between Russia and Alaska there weren't hundreds of millions of people who would be displaced by that.

No, the planet will survive, and humans will do what they always do: adapt.

Well. I'd bet billions will die.

I have exhibited far superior knowledge to what you post. It is just that much of it can not pierce your programming.

Can't pierce my programming with:

Gimme some of these!

in the form of peer reviewed work!

They absorb photons, releasing some back to Earth and some to outer space.

Not in the lower atmosphere (troposphere lower Strat.). But yes higher up a lot fit goes to space.

Man...I think God's design is incredible to me.

However, as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, so does the biosphere, which converts CO2 back to carbon and oxygen.

You should talk to some people about not ripping out forest for agricultural land then...buuut....that's gonna mean less beef...

The trap photons. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas.

I know.
Anyone: This video is the BEST description AND presentation on the chemistry of greenhouse gas(es). Fantastic! You could start at 3:00
Reactions | But HOW Does Carbon Dioxide Trap Heat? | Season 9 | Episode 6 | PBS.

Who said they weren't?

You didn't directly answer.
Regardless, I can confidently tell you that the CEOs of the Top 100 greenhouse gas releasing corporations (contributing 71% of humanity's GGs)
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

But who says they will continue to increase at a steady state?

You didn't directly answer.
Regardless, I can confidently tell you that the CEOs of the Top 100 greenhouse gas releasing corporations (contributing 71% of humanity's GGs)
Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says

There is no natural PROVEN explanation for the current increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Any potential increase can be blamed on humanity. And if that wasn't enough, you'd find studies that take a isotopic analyses of the CO2 in the atmosphere as they can tell whether CO2 was released from a fossil fuel or from the natural source that prove the same thing.

No, not even close. From the Smithsonian on the earth's early atmosphere: "It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere."

You can't compare a dull rock, basically devoid of an atmosphere; with barely any liquid water; devoid of life, to the current state of the planet. It simply does not make sense...unless you care to actually explain how.

No, I have heard the BS about climate change probably before you got out of diapers.

Hey man, it's your grandchildren/greatgrandchildren who'd end up suffering from our, and our predecessors decisions.

Climate change happens. It always has, and it always will.

Yes. It always happened over MILLENIA.
It NEVER happened over centuries.

Are you a believer in the bible? What does that have to say about seed time and harvest?

You reap what you sow? The most unfortunate thing is...no we don't. Our progeny and descendants do

Meteorologists can't even get predictions that are correct day to day.

I honestly don't know how terrible everyone else's meteorologist is. The one in our area is perfectly fine.

Read your history on this.

I prefer to read research actually.
Did you have some to share?

Go ahead and study it out and see how wrong these predictions have been. But that doesn't matter because it has become the religion of the new atheists.

To be clear: Because I believe in human caused climate change you think I'm an atheist?

Pretty sure that's against the TOS herein if you'd want to correct that.

You are way too [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], sure.

Well, I'm barely out of my diapers....though I did finish up my Bachelor of Science degree about 26 years ago.

 

[Pommer]

No, she is still wrong.

Good.
It’s nice to have your mind made up about an issue.
So long as it the “evidence” for such a decision isn’t also made-up.

 

[Gene2memE]

View attachment 348793

I’m shaking in my boots.

Why, because some numpty on Twitter does not know how to properly parse language?

This post by Ms Thunberg was not forecasting (or repeating a forecast) that humanity would be wiped out in five years.

Why is it that the most strident are generally the least perspicacious?

 

[Adam56]

Why, because some numpty on Twitter does not know how to properly parse language?

This post by Ms Thunberg was not forecasting (or repeating a forecast) that humanity would be wiped out in five years.

Why is it that the most strident are generally the least perspicacious?

Nope, you misinterpreted what I said. Read over the last few posts.

 

[Pommer]

Why, because some numpty on Twitter does not know how to properly parse language?

This post by Ms Thunberg was not forecasting (or repeating a forecast) that humanity would be wiped out in five years.

Why is it that the most strident are generally the least perspicacious?

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.—Bertrand Russell, about 90 years ago, I think.

 

[Pommer]

Climate change has always been here and always will be. We adapt or we die.

In the 70’s it was global cooling. We are all supposed to be frozen to death by now.

If you can get everyone to panic they will turn their freedoms over to you.

Look what happened with Covid? Where did it go? What’s is different now that makes us walk around maskless?

‘THEY‘ use science to scare people with to get $$$.

How is this substantially different than:
They use politics to scare people to get $$$ ?

Sometimes the politics and the science align. No problem, everyone agrees.
Sometimes politicians will pass laws against doing some aspect of “science”, that science isn’t even thinking of doing…yet. (Like widespread teen-gender-surgeries. No-one was doing teenagers, with exceptions for “medically necessary” procedures.)

Sometimes the scientific-community fails to warn our representatives, sufficiently, about the dangers that our techonoly may soon bring to the “marketplace-of-ideas”, (AI), but as I haven’t heard congress really looking into AI very much, I would guess that either the threat isn’t so bad, or scientists are just as weaselly as politicians?

But yeah American politics anymore is “be afraid and stay angry”, ya picks yer poison and ya sticks with it.

It’s possible to “opt out” of the constant bickering, (but it‘s always been here, to one degree or another), and since it’s always here, we can take breaks from defending ”our side“.
Why, I can go minutes at a time without it!