@Third BakerI wasn't suggesting at all that elimination of
petroleum use is possible right now. I only used oil companies as a
representation of a group directly involved in the increase of CO2 speaking out
about the importance of climate change reform. Our dependence on
petroleum in all the things you listed and more is why reasonable scientists are
trying to find solutions now, because the problem will only get worse. Not to
mention that petroleum is a finite resource. Energy demands have grown
exponentially, which means demands on petroleum have grown which increases CO2
output.My point was that debating for or against climate change is a
waste of time. There is plenty of data that proves climate change and links
human activity to climate change. Media outlets and politicians are
arguing whether climate change is happening. Scientists are trying to slow or
reverse our impact to avoid the potential outcomes.
Schnee says: "A real scientist would know that scientific accuracy is
not determined by who is a superior public speaker in a forum. "I'd like to ask you a question: Who below are the real scientists? Newton and LeibnizEinstein and LenardDyson and OppenheimerDawson and Higgs/ReesAnswer: They're all real scientists who
disagreed and debated and sparred over scientific theories. To not allow any
debate at all is NOT science!!Guess what? Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere
allows for increasing temperatures by absorbing infrared radiation. No
reasonable scientist disputes this cold, hard fact. But how is this now become
"catastrophic?" How has 400ppm CO2 supposedly going to wipe out
humankind as we know it? In fact, all computer models rely on POSITIVE FEEDBACK
to get to supposedly catastrophic scenarios, of which absolutely NONE have
played out thus far. So, another question for you: What is the ratio of cold
related deaths to heat related deaths worldwide? The answer will be SHOCKING for
you Schnee. And this is EXACTLY why I will never be able to publicly debate any
alarmist who loves to throw out Milankovitch cycles to impress people into
@conservative scientist: "Every time we have a hot day or a series of hot
days, then it's proof of global warming. . . , but cold days or a series of
cold days are more proof of global warming."No, silly. Hot days
are climate. Cold days are weather. Try to keep the narrative straight.
Here is a simple calculation I would like people to perform. Take a standard
cubic meter of nitrogen gas (good approximation for the atmosphere), and assume
it has the standard Boltzmann distribution. Calculate the average velocity of
each particle, multiply by half the weight, and there you have the average
kinetic energy, also known as temperature.Now, take 1 millionth of
the particles (1 part per million) and speed them up to 90% the speed of light.
Now, recalculate the average kinetic energy (also known as average
temperature).How much does it change the temperature? The answer -
not much at all. This is clearly a worst case scenario as "global
warming" will note heat particles up to relativistic speeds. The
conclusion: parts-per-million changes in CO2 concentration are not going to
change the overall temperature in a measurable way. Do the math yourself.
Schnee: "paleoclimate evidence that suggests a 100+ thousand
year Milankovitch cycle brings CO2 from around 180 to 300 and back down
again"And how exactly is this "paleoclimate evidence"
currently causing "catastrophic" changes right now? How many more people
are dying because of this? How many civilizations are being wiped out? Schnee,
how do you define "catastrophe"? Careful, because nobody else from the
alarmist side seems to know exactly what that means.
@Schnee The one third increase can easily be explained by the lack
of forestry, and population increases. In just the US we tripled our population
from 1920-2010 from 100 million to 300 million.Studies done
eliminating volcanic activity have shown that there is no global warming.
You can't debate ignorance.Ok! Global warming is causing our
cold winter weather. Bring on the Paris climate accord and submit ourselves to
the global leaders who have continuously created prosperity to the world.
@showlowdoc"There's not one shred of evidence in the past, or
now, that humans have any appreciable let alone catastrophic effect on climate.
"That is just demonstrably false. The second most important
greenhouse gas in the atmosphere increased in concentration by a third in less
than a century defying all paleoclimate evidence that suggests a 100+ thousand
year Milankovitch cycle brings CO2 from around 180 to 300 and back down again.
We went from 300 to 400, with carbon isotopic analysis in the atmosphere
pointing towards humans. In the meantime global temperatures have risen over the
past century and all alternative explanations do not explain that at all. If it
were the sun we'd have peaked in global temperature a few decades ago. The
5 warmest years in the modern record were the 5 most recent years despite being
in the weakest solar cycle in almost a century."Why no
debate?"A real scientist would know that scientific accuracy is
not determined by who is a superior public speaker in a forum. Obama and Romney
split the debates, that didn't mean who was speaking truth or the better
president switched from day to day.
The climate is always changing and will continue to change no matter how many
tax dollars we waste on it . There is no proven program that will guarantee you
can change the Temperature 1 Degree plus or minus over time by pouring millions
of taxpayer dollars on scientific theories that use suspect models to draw
absolute conclusions. They can make their studies come out the way the people
who are footing the bill wants it be.
After spending the past 14 years researching climate change, I'm tired of
fighting against the brick wall of the climate machine. If you repeat something
enough times with enough money, it becomes "true". It's truly a
phenomenon. There's not one shred of evidence in the past, or now, that
humans have any appreciable let alone catastrophic effect on climate. Set aside
the temptation to rely on opinions, organizational statements, and personalities
and look at the facts. You can call me a "denier", and "goof" or
a "charlatan" all you want. But facts are facts, despite any spin. Spend
some time. I've spent over 14 years. Do you think this is why nobody has
ever agree to a public debate based on current outcome studies (and not computer
generated models)? Why no debate? Because the current findings are humiliating
to climate alarmists. And I mean HUMILIATING. I especially love the outcome
studies on death due to extreme heat vs. extreme cold, or the supposed malaria
pandemic, just to name a couple.
We had two ice ages in the middle ages, separated by a period of global warming.
Our climate is always changing, remember Northern Utah was once a great Lake.
Without dinosaurs, mankind would still be in the middle ages. We
should praise fossil fuels, and have a national Dinosaur day to thank them for
the Industrial revolution.
hokieland43: Science or no science, the real issue here is that the human race
is not going to give up fossil fuels and live in caves because we can't,
it’s simply not possible! People will never give up affordable food,
medicines, clothing and shelter (especially when these kinds of arctic blasts
happen), all dependent upon fossil fuels! That isn't going to happen! In
the meantime, I suggest you give your teaching skills a test and go to the
mid-west and teach those people that global warming is real!
@Mainly Me"Tens of thousands" of scientists huh? The sources
I suggested people look at are not news sources, they are scientific
organizations showing data. If you dig deeper, they will also explain how the
data were collected and where they were collected.I teach freshman
level geoscience courses at a university and work with many scientist from
different fields. I haven't found any reputable scientific sources
disproving climate change. I have never met one scientist who thinks climate
change is fake.Give at least 1 scientifically backed source of data
disproving climate change before you claim "tens of thousands" of
scientist have disproved it. Energy companies receive no financial
benefit for publically stating climate change is a real problem. Why would they
support scientist about climate change when the products they sell are one of
the leading causes of the issues?
worf said: "Crazy! * In the nineteen thirties, people believed Martians were
attacking earth. * People once believed the earth is flat."Some
people still think the earth is flat, (probably the same percentage as global
warming deniers)Some people think that the earths complicated
climate is like a refrigerator box, and north is equal to higher altitude.Some people claim 10's of thousands of accredited scientist
don't believe in Global warming, but don't provide anything but their
comment as evidence?
@Vanceone"Look, the "scientists" quoted in this article (who
are really propagandists, mostly) wouldn't say global warming is false if a
glacier buried Cairo. And that's the honest truth. "They
say what's happening, and when looking at the globe it's still above
average today.@conservative scientist"a series of hot
days, then it's proof of global warming, but cold days or a series of cold
days are more proof of global warming."@worf"Global warming
is causing temperatures of forty below zero?"Global warming
appears to be making a meandering jet stream more common. That in turns makes
more frequent polar vortex breakup, which involves both Arctic air reaching far
south and warm air reaching far north. This particular type of event may occur
more often with global warming but because the Earth is warming cold records are
being set less often, and warm records more often.@Utes-pac12"Cold air is far lighter than warm air."Cold air is
denser.@mainly me["Experts advise that the cold snap
doesn’t debunk global warming...."What a farce.]Localized cold. Jan. 2019 will still be one of the warmest Januarys globally.
Cold air is not more dense than warm air. Ever heard of a hot air balloon?
@hokieland43 - "The fact is that data and science proving
climate change is common and from reputable sources. Climate change isn't
being debated anymore in the scientific community."These
statements simply show that you only listen to the mainstream news. There are
tens of thousands of scientists who do debate the pseudoscience of climate
change, but are attacked and suppressed. Do your own research instead of
listening to the media.
"Experts advise that the cold snap doesn’t debunk global
warming...."What a farce. Does anyone know how many genuine
experts are suppressed that laugh at the idea of "global warming?" Tens
of thousands of experts exist that say this is pseudo science, but these
scientists are attacked or simply ignored by the media because it doesn't
fit the media's agenda.
@ Worf,It is the exact opposite sir. Cold air is far lighter than
warm air. You need an education.
Michael Mann? The atmospheric science professor with the thoroughly discredited
"hockey stick graph", the one that distorted past climate history and
made outlandish predictions of the effect of carbon dioxide on the environment?
That Michael Mann? Right. . .
The phrase 'global warming' is only part of climate change. The push
made by scientist is to reduce release of carbon dioxide and other gases to
reduce climate change. This includes increases in extreme temperatures (like we
are seeing on the cold side) as well as increases in extreme weather (multiple
massive hurricanes in the past few years) and drought conditions, which Utahns
should care about very much and other concerns. Global warming is only a part
of it. The heart of what scientists are saying in this article is that climate
change concerns are based on trends. The trend of average and extreme
temperatures is increasing, and coincides with the increase of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. You can find these trends on NOAAs and NASAs websites pretty
easily. Just type 'CO2 trends NOAA' and 'average temperature
trends NASA' into google.The fact is that data and science
proving climate change is common and from reputable sources. Climate change
isn't being debated anymore in the scientific community.A side
note: Many large energy companies, ie. Exxon and Chevron, all agree climate
change is a concern that needs to be addressed.
Crazy!Global warming is causing temperatures of forty below zero?* In the nineteen thirties, people believed Martians were attacking
earth.* People once believed the earth is flat.* Many
civilizations believed human sacrifice was a way of worship and pleasing the
gods.* Icebergs will melt and cause coastal flooding.* Man will
never fly.* People didn't know why we were at war in Vietnam.*
Some folks don't know what a heart does.Why are people so
Much like Donald with all the intelligence right in front of him, he still
prefers ignorant arrogance. This is how the deniers deal with
evidence, they counter with anecdotal observations instead of the bigger
picture, and research presented by a small percentage of fringe pseudo science
blogs, much like the revival of the flat earther's.
I get it. Every time we have a hot day or a series of hot days, then it's
proof of global warming (at least according to the many climate scientists who
frequent these comment boards), but cold days or a series of cold days are more
proof of global warming.
@Johnny Triumph"If I'm reading it correctly people are assuming
that global warming is responsible for the current deep freeze?"A slower, more meandering jet stream makes excursions of polar air down south
more common. There is research suggesting that global warming (particularly in
the Arctic with the sea ice melt) is leading to a slower jet stream. So
it's not saying we haven't had these before, just that these are
likely to become more frequent. But at the same time we are still setting cold
records less frequently than we normally would expect if there were no global
warming at all and global temperatures this week are still above average.
@worf"Warm air is lighter than cold air and will not push colder
arctic air south. Look at the open freezers and refrigerators in a grocery store
with open tops."The comparison to that freezer with an open top
is the stable layers experienced in the Salt Lake Valley during a wintertime
inversion. So that's a good analogy for explaining why the pollution gets
trapped in the valley.But... up-down is not the same as north-south.
The refrigerator in your house is going to have temperature problems if you
leave the forward facing door open.Thanks to the breakup of the
polar vortex caused by a sudden stratospheric warming event a few weeks ago, the
cold air is down here (well, here being the midwest, Europe, and Siberia), the
Arctic has large areas much warmer than average, and the Earth is still globally
warmer than average this week.
@worfWarm air is lighter than cold air and will not push colder arctic air
south. Look at the open freezers and refrigerators in a grocery store with open
tops. The warmer air does not push the colder air out of it."Oh
my. Science teacher, huh? This isn't about lighter or heavier. It's
about pressure and currents. Ever notice that those freezers have walls around
them? Ever wonder why? It's to keep the pressure and currents from pushing
the surrounding cold out. Just like what's happening with the Arctic. But,
hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "knowledge".
@worfYou do know that north and south are not equivalent to up and
down, right? Please tell me you know that...
A new Ice age is coming.
Look, the "scientists" quoted in this article (who are really
propagandists, mostly) wouldn't say global warming is false if a glacier
buried Cairo. And that's the honest truth. If you could dog sled from
Boston to Rome, they'd still tell you how the frozen Atlantic is proof of
This new style of writing is unreadable and offers little by way of content. If
I'm reading it correctly people are assuming that global warming is
responsible for the current deep freeze? Look at historical temperature trends
and you'll see this is nothing new.
Science deniers ignoring the facts are nothing new. Freezers in the grocery
store? This explains the weather? Wow.
Science and data are fake news. The drastic climate change is reality.
Research, study, and draw your own conclusions.I lived in North
Dakota in the nineteen sixties. In a month, the warmest it got was ten below
zero.--This weather is nothing new.Warm air is lighter than cold air
and will not push colder arctic air south. Look at the open freezers and
refrigerators in a grocery store with open tops. The warmer air does not push
the colder air out of it.