|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Solar minimum/maximum and other anomalies like gravitational pull that the global warming alarmists never talk about nor is it being taught in schools.
Nah, this won't have an effect on the earths climate. https://www.livescience.com/61716-su...l-warming.html https://bgr.com/2020/05/18/solar-min...-sun-activity/
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#2
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First: In picking China (9.3 giga tons (GT)) and India (2.2 GT) you picked the countries with the highest and third highest total CO2 emissions in 2017. You left out the country with the second highest total CO2 emissions (4.8 GT). The country with the second highest total CO2 emissions had more than twice the total of India, yet you chose India as a country that “won’t play.” Why is that? Is it because the U.S. is number 2? Second: In using total CO2 emissions per country as your metric, you are totally missing the point of the agreement that you claim China and India “won’t play” with. The agreement is supposed to allocate reductions in a fair manner. Therefore, it considers CO2 emissions per person. In looking at it this way, China drops to number 12 (6.5 tons per person) and India to number 20 (1.6 tons per person). Who’s number one you ask? Saudi Arabia (16.1 tons per person). Why didn’t you name them as a non-player? Why didn’t you name Australia (number 2 at 15.6 tons per person), Canada (number 3 at 14.9 tons per person), U.S. (number 4 at 14.6 tons per person), or South Korea (number 5 at 11.7 tons per person)? https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/eac...-co2-emissions Third: India is playing. They’re actions are compatible with keeping a limit on temperature growth to less than 2 degrees C. Whose actions aren’t you ask? Of the countries listed above, Australia and Canada are insufficient. China and South Korea are highly insufficient. Saudi Arabia and U.S. are critically insufficient. https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/ Fourth: In 2017, an estimated 36.1 GT of CO2 were released into the atmosphere. China and India were responsible for (simple math – ((9.3 GT + 2.2 GT)/36.1 GT) 31.8 % of that. But yet, you attribute 50% of the problem to them? That’s bad math. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did you know that 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide is deemed as immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)? Let’s say you could obtain $1,000,000 by entering a room with 1 ppm of hydrogen selenide in it. Let’s further say that someone said they could reduce it by 0.5 ppm before you went in. Would your response be, “No need, trying to reduce an already tiny number by an infinitesimally smaller number is foolish to the extreme.”? It’s perfectly fine not to agree with climate change. I don’t understand people who don’t agree with it, but it’s okay. What I don’t understand is, if the only why to support your denial of climate change is with misinformation, bad math, bad science, and illogical reasoning, how reasonable is your denial?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Everything they spew is about man this, man that, when the truth is, many factors outside of our control affect the climate, but of course, none of that is ever talked about. The links are from alarmist sites who are disputing and downplaying what some real scientists are talking about because it goes against their narrative/agenda. As you will notice with my bolds, nothing is ever certain but rather just guesses. Just like the way it has always been. "12 years to save the planet", "NY city will be under water", "the great lakes will be dried up", "no more polar bears", "no more glaciers", "rain forests gone", "mass extinction", the list goes on and on and on and not one thing has ever come true, ever. Alarmists, like the bold above, use words like maybe, likely, we're not sure, could, might, etc, and the sheep lap that right up as fact rather than recognize those words are just guesses, speculation and conjecture. One would think, after decades of getting things wrong, one would open their eyes and say, wait a minute, you clowns have been spewing this crap forever but nothing has ever come true. But no, I guess the sheep, who are incapable of thinking for themselves, can't see that so they just keep on believing what they are fed because it fits their narrative and continues to feed their brainwashed belief system. Curious, Mike, what are your thoughts on the record breaking cold spring that many places had this year? Is that all part of global warming as well? I know the alarmists say it is all connected and that we shouldn't even consider those temps we seen, but I'm curious on your thoughts? "Record Cold Spring at Several Locations" https://www.weather.gov/abr/coldspring https://www.blogto.com/city/2020/04/...-cold-weather/ https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/articl...navik_nunavut/ https://www.freshdaily.ca/news/2020/...pring-weather/
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Yeah, I apologize. I have a hard time following illogical ramblings that have no point. My bad.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ld-weather.htm
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
And linking to an article by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about won't help your case. How do I know he doesn't know what he's talking about? "And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions." Really? CO2 in the atmosphere is typically talked about in terms of concentration in parts per million by volume (ppmv). CO2 emissions are typically talked about in tons per year. So he's saying, of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, humans cause a percentage of the tons per year of CO2 emissions. What does that even mean? It's just something that someone thinks sounds good. Nothing more. Quote:
Quote:
And no, I don't agree with any of your math. Like the article you cite, you throw numbers around recklessly without regard to their units or to their relationship. Quote:
Quote:
Finally, some facts to chew on. Consider the atmosphere like a bank. You put money in the bank, it will increase unless you take some out. We put CO2 in the atmosphere, it will increase unless some is taken out. And yes, some is taken out. It has been estimated that approximately 40% is taken up by plants, the oceans, etc. Therefore, of the estimated 36.1 GT emitted in 2017, 21.6 GT actually stayed in the atmosphere. It is still there today along with the 2018, 2019, 2016, 2015, etc emissions. Based on the weight of the atmosphere, 1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is equivalent to about 7.8 GT of CO2. So, the CO2 concentration increased 2.7 ppm based on net 2017 emissions (21.6 GT/(7.8 GT/ 1 ppm)). This is a little higher than the average ppm increase over the last decade, 2.3 ppm per year. So we're not off by much. So consider an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere of more than 2 ppm each and every year. Nothing to worry about?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In Minnesota, the temperature often varies by 100 degrees over a 6 month period, from hitting sub-zero temps in January to topping 100 for a few days in July. During some days, the temperature can vary as much as 40 degrees, from night to day. And yet, a 1 or 2 degree change, spread over 100 years or longer, is going to cause extinctions and dramatically change the planet? Come on. If a frog can adapt to a 100 degree change in its environment over a 6 month period, one or two degrees spread over 100 years (and fifty or more generations of frogs) isn't going to affect them at all. That's just silly. I'm sure the difference between the recent mini ice age and today was a bigger change, and life adapted. Furthermore, ice ages cause a lot more death and turmoil to life forms than warmth, generally. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Well
I have learned to blame everything on El Nino.
Cold winter...must be El Nino Hot summer...El Nino My drive-through order screwed up...El Nino |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You sound like the great philosopher, Alfred E. Neuman, "What, me worry?"
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Just how much money do you have invested in solar and wind companies, Mike?
Do you honestly believe, like the link you posted, what you are reading is factual and written by real scientists without an agenda? Do you not even find it just a little bit suspect that the alarmist movement even tries to justify record cold weather as being part of global warming? No offense, but you sound as brainwashed, gut hooked, delusional and crazy as Bill Nye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubpN72D6AI
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The first article says: "But it's unlikely that we'll see a return to the extreme cold from centuries ago, researchers reported in a new study. Since the Maunder Minimum, global average temperatures have been on the rise, driven by climate change. Though a new decades-long dip in solar radiation could slow global warming somewhat, it wouldn't be by much, the researchers' simulations demonstrated. And by the end of the incoming cooling period, temperatures would have bounced back from the temporary cooldown." The second article says: "There has historically been speculation regarding whether a particularly deep and extended solar minimum called the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s contributed to the Little Ice Age, which was a period of colder-than-average temperatures across both North America and Europe, but the evidence is weak. It’s more likely, some scientists suggest, that the temperature dip was linked to volcanic activity rather than a quiet solar period. Overall temperatures are believed to have dropped just 1 degree on average during that mini “ice age.”" Again, what's your point?
__________________
M.!.c.h.@.3.L. . H.v.n.T _____________________________ Don't believe everything you think |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Green Tint New Deal | JollyElm | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 0 | 10-10-2019 05:25 PM |
Ted Williams Real Deal? | Case12 | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 3 | 12-27-2018 11:16 AM |
Real or Fake? Deal or No Deal? | KMayUSA6060 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 10-02-2016 09:13 AM |
The real deal. what do u think? | GrayGhost | Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports | 8 | 05-19-2012 08:24 AM |
If this is real it is THE best deal EVER on eBay | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 9 | 12-02-2002 11:24 PM |