Evidently, AGW gives Siberia record cold, too. Also, many places in the southern hemisphere are colder than normal. North American snow cover is very high, too. AGW does many, unpredictable things. I wish we could predict what AGW is going to do next.
You just posted a trendline graph that shows an clear positive trend in avg temperatures over the past 50 yrs in an attempt to deny AGW. Lol. Try again.Evidently, AGW gives Siberia record cold, too. Also, many places in the southern hemisphere are colder than normal. North American snow cover is very high, too. AGW does many, unpredictable things. I wish we could predict what AGW is going to do next.
January wasn't warmer than normal in many places in the world, as the UAH satellite data shows. We are now below the 30 year baseline. Where did I put my hockey stick again? I need to find it...I have charts to make.
See my post about how long we've been measuring temps with satellites. Dataset is not long enough to prove anything. It doesn't prove global cooling, either. That's my point. I was only interested in the global temp in relation to recent years to show that an unusually warm January was localized.
All of us will be long dead by then.
Wounder if we will stick freezers in Siberia to stop the Methane from escaping when the permafrost definitely melts in the next 50 years. It's all a scam.
You brought up our "torch" in the SE on the other thread as related to AGW. Curious if we were the region with BN temps and harsh winter wx (whole isolated island deal) would that post have even been dropped there
I've heard 30 years. I'll almost certainly be at room temperature. YMMV
I suggest we try to release sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere then! It is a stupid road we're going down right now in this "save mother earth movement". Case and point; electric cars. We first of all manufacture a product that has to be moved that is 30 percent heavier. That means it takes 30 percent more horse power to move it. We think that trying to store energy in a container( that is a battery), that is not completely efficient, That green house emissions will be reduced?! Not to mention the inefficiencies of transport of the energy (electricity) which is produced at power plants that run on green house gas producing fuel, to the extremely heavy, and dangerous to the environment battery. Not to mention, the infrastructure which can't support more than a small percent of vehicles that run this way. Power lines, sub-stations, power polls, and houses would have to be reconfigured, which would in itself be a large greenhouse gas producing Industry. Then after a few years, when the battery dies, it would cost more than an engine to replace. Not to mention, no one except the extremely wealthy would buy an electric vehicle, if the government didn't subsidize the manufacturer to produce it and the retailer to sell it. It takes either an extremely gullible person, or at the very least a very superficial thinking person to follow this kind of thinking which comes from this movement.
How do you know we are warmer than the 1930's? Where are the metrics? For accurate, uncontaminated measurements you need to be able to hold as many variables constant as you can. How can we do that and measure the earth's surface temperature from the 1930's? We didn't have nearly as much development in and around cities then, or even up until the 1950's. Also, what if one single source of CO2 and pollution is the culprit here? What if it's only air traffic, namely from jets, that is causing the problem? Banning air travel might be the only thing necessary. CO2 is heavier than air, right (44g/mol where air is 29g/mol)? Release in the boundary layer is going to see it pool up at the ground, where it is very likely to be taken up by plants and algae and unlikely to lead to any significant warming. Released in the upper atmosphere means, what exactly? Does it just collect up there, trapped by strong upper level winds? How much do we know about the distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere? Before widespread air travel, all CO2, except from volcanoes, was released at the surface. As you said in your post, other aerosols released from volcanoes overcome the CO2 warming and lead to cooling overall. What if we add the cooling aerosols to be released at the same time the exhaust from the jet engines is released, negating CO2's effects? Could it be this simple and avoid all of the social upheaval down on the surface?
What about the following:
But the claim is that the narrow band of infrared energy that CO2 absorbs is already being captured nearly 100% by the existing CO2 in the atmosphere. It's like the accelerator pedal is pushed all the way down. How is adding more CO2 going to capture more infrared energy than is already being emitted? It takes time for the earth to heat up and increase the radiation in this narrow band where the abundant CO2 can absorb and radiate it back. You're going to have wildly different scenarios depending on your assumptions of how much the earth is radiating back (rate of warming) versus other factors that are trying to create an equilibrium. More heat means more water vapor, more clouds and precipitation and less solar energy reaching the surface.
Guarantee we're already engaging in geoengineering in some form or another. The economics aspect is pretty simple. There's no quick or easy or affordable way to transition away from FFs. If it's done by mandate, it will be arduous, disruptive, expensive, and it will force millions to become completely dependent on governments. Besides, if we believe what we're being told and have been told for years, we've passed the point of no return many times now.
I know someone that is all about that. He's been very active in Africa. He likes vaccines a lot, too.
Much of this whole debate is hypothesis. There is hard data, sure, but we do not know what it portends. And we're not even close to understanding what mechanisms the Earth has to combat increased CO2. It is as much of an emotional issue as it is a scientific one, and you can clearly observe that anytime a discussion about it pops up. Like I said yesterday, we are so certain of everything.
Understand that completely. Biden's already planning to engage in SO2 injection into the stratosphere, similar to volcano eruption. It looks like it will be 10 billion a year to being the temp down 1 degree Celsius. About 10% of EPA's annual budget for example. It's far cheaper than carbon sequestration for example which costs $600 per ton of CO2.
www.cnbc.com
Because messing with things we don't understand always works out well.Understand that completely. Biden's already planning to engage in SO2 injection into the stratosphere, similar to volcano eruption. It looks like it will be 10 billion a year to being the temp down 1 degree Celsius. About 10% of EPA's annual budget for example. It's far cheaper than carbon sequestration for example which costs $600 per ton of CO2.
White House is pushing ahead research to cool Earth by reflecting back sunlight
There are several kinds of sunlight-reflection technology, and none have been thoroughly researched due to a perceived moral hazard. But sentiment is shifting.
Better than the Amazon completely burning down which it will if this doesn't happen.
"Facts" can be hard to present in a way that removes bias and conjecture. Is it a fact that much of the US is warmer than it was 50 years ago? Many would say yes. I know my area seems warmer and gets less snow, but do I have enough data to say that the whole country has factually warmed (or the whole planet), and it is absolutely due to man induced activities? I doubt it. The same scientists tell us there is more ice volume in the antarctic than at any time in the satellite era. The same scientists told us the Arctic would be ice free by the year 2000, or 2010, or 2020, or.... . Which are facts and which are biased conjecture? We know that most of our long-term temp reading stations have been influenced by the growth of cities and their heat island effects. We could say these areas are factually warmer b/c we have the data, but we also have to recognize that particular data describes micro climates and it would be inappropriate to apply on a global scale.
