Some scientists think that the changing albedo of the planet is a major cause. Others say jet contrails contribute. Some say that the reduction in particulate pollution is partially to blame..Just because some dunderheaded dork read an article in some magazine and spouts some of it off doesn’t equal confirmation….
A general was curious about what his auditors, accountants, and budget analysts actually provided him. He went to the accountant and asked… “What is 2+2?”“Approximately 2 plus approximately 2 is approximately 4 said the accountant.”He asked the auditor the same question.“Exactly 2 plus exactly 2 is exactly 4” answered the auditor.The General then went to the office of his Budget Analyst.“What is 2+2?” he asked.The budget analyst looked at the officer and after a moment, stood up. He went to the door and after looking up and down the hallway, closed and locked the door. Then he went to his window, looked out briefly and closed the blinds. Then he went to the chair next to the General, sat down, and in a whisper asked….“How much do you want it to be?”^The science… the data, numbers, records, and computer models upon which millions if not billions of dollars have been spent in an effort to come to educated conclusions… states clearly that our climate is changing at an increasing rate. But those who feel it is too expensive to make the changes needed to slow or reverse this ever more costly pattern look at the numbers and try to tell us what they want the numbers to mean.The failure of the Arctic to keep the polar vortex IN the Arctic is going to cost the USA 5 Billion this week alone. NOAA says that Climate Change caused by Global Warming has changed the Arctic temps making it harder for the North Pole to keep the Vortex AT the North Pole. The satellite images show the vortex breaking up and splitting off to the south over North America and Europe. I always state my hope that I am just worried over nothing, but too many scientists and sources I trust continue to worry. I fear that those who deny the ever more costly effects of Climate Change are, like the Danish King who sat in his throne telling the tide to stay away from him, are going to be in over their head if they wait too long to take action.Respectfully,C.
Is… That jet contrails are NOT CO2 and therefore a different potential or real cause of Climate Change.Each and every other potential or real cause is ignored by the Gorebal Warming bunch in favor of just the CO2 explaination. That’s my argument.
I have a much more general question. Just what would be wrong with changing the technology of our civilization over from burning fossil fuels? After all, the technology of burning fuel in internal combustion types of power or energy generation is a very old one (just about 150-200 years now). Newer and more sound types of such power for our civilization are becoming more and more inexpensive and efficient all the time. If this trend should continue, by the end of this century human civilization will be all electric, with that electrical power being generated by environmentally friendly means: wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and yes, nuclear (with eventually fusion, which for all practical means eliminates the problem of radiation). This would mean that almost all pollution (it is impossible to eliminate every possible bit of human pollution, as that would mean eliminating humanity itself) would be eliminated. Would that not be a far better human civilization for humanity and even all other forms of life on this pretty planet to live with? As a question for those that seem to oppose this (mainly any type of deniers). Exactly what would be wrong with that???
I am repeating this, but it is important for those who think there is any meaningful doubt about the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):New study: 9,135 of 9,136 authors of peer-reviewed climate articles support global warming. One (1) rejected it. This is based on a story of 13,950 articles on “global warming” OR “global climate change.” Previously it was noted by this author that only 24 articles explicitly rejected the theory (that’s 99.828% support for AGW). This study went to the authors of those studies. ALL DATA IS AVAILABLE BEHIND THIS LINK. The author says “Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish—all of it if they like.”That’s 99.989% of publishing scientists who agree AGW is real and happening.http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
frodo1008 over 10 years ago
The same science that is the basis for the very internet that the science deniers will use to attempt to debunk such a cartoon!!
Enoki over 10 years ago
Some scientists think that the changing albedo of the planet is a major cause. Others say jet contrails contribute. Some say that the reduction in particulate pollution is partially to blame..Just because some dunderheaded dork read an article in some magazine and spouts some of it off doesn’t equal confirmation….
chazandru over 10 years ago
A general was curious about what his auditors, accountants, and budget analysts actually provided him. He went to the accountant and asked… “What is 2+2?”“Approximately 2 plus approximately 2 is approximately 4 said the accountant.”He asked the auditor the same question.“Exactly 2 plus exactly 2 is exactly 4” answered the auditor.The General then went to the office of his Budget Analyst.“What is 2+2?” he asked.The budget analyst looked at the officer and after a moment, stood up. He went to the door and after looking up and down the hallway, closed and locked the door. Then he went to his window, looked out briefly and closed the blinds. Then he went to the chair next to the General, sat down, and in a whisper asked….“How much do you want it to be?”^The science… the data, numbers, records, and computer models upon which millions if not billions of dollars have been spent in an effort to come to educated conclusions… states clearly that our climate is changing at an increasing rate. But those who feel it is too expensive to make the changes needed to slow or reverse this ever more costly pattern look at the numbers and try to tell us what they want the numbers to mean.The failure of the Arctic to keep the polar vortex IN the Arctic is going to cost the USA 5 Billion this week alone. NOAA says that Climate Change caused by Global Warming has changed the Arctic temps making it harder for the North Pole to keep the Vortex AT the North Pole. The satellite images show the vortex breaking up and splitting off to the south over North America and Europe. I always state my hope that I am just worried over nothing, but too many scientists and sources I trust continue to worry. I fear that those who deny the ever more costly effects of Climate Change are, like the Danish King who sat in his throne telling the tide to stay away from him, are going to be in over their head if they wait too long to take action.Respectfully,C.
Enoki over 10 years ago
Is… That jet contrails are NOT CO2 and therefore a different potential or real cause of Climate Change.Each and every other potential or real cause is ignored by the Gorebal Warming bunch in favor of just the CO2 explaination. That’s my argument.
eugene57 over 10 years ago
Gresch said, about 7 hours ago“I have heard…”And there you have already lost all credibility.
frodo1008 over 10 years ago
I have a much more general question. Just what would be wrong with changing the technology of our civilization over from burning fossil fuels? After all, the technology of burning fuel in internal combustion types of power or energy generation is a very old one (just about 150-200 years now). Newer and more sound types of such power for our civilization are becoming more and more inexpensive and efficient all the time. If this trend should continue, by the end of this century human civilization will be all electric, with that electrical power being generated by environmentally friendly means: wind, solar, geothermal, tide, and yes, nuclear (with eventually fusion, which for all practical means eliminates the problem of radiation). This would mean that almost all pollution (it is impossible to eliminate every possible bit of human pollution, as that would mean eliminating humanity itself) would be eliminated. Would that not be a far better human civilization for humanity and even all other forms of life on this pretty planet to live with? As a question for those that seem to oppose this (mainly any type of deniers). Exactly what would be wrong with that???
Motivemagus over 10 years ago
I am repeating this, but it is important for those who think there is any meaningful doubt about the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW):New study: 9,135 of 9,136 authors of peer-reviewed climate articles support global warming. One (1) rejected it. This is based on a story of 13,950 articles on “global warming” OR “global climate change.” Previously it was noted by this author that only 24 articles explicitly rejected the theory (that’s 99.828% support for AGW). This study went to the authors of those studies. ALL DATA IS AVAILABLE BEHIND THIS LINK. The author says “Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish—all of it if they like.”That’s 99.989% of publishing scientists who agree AGW is real and happening.http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming