Guess What? The Globe Is Warming Faster than Predicted

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If warming is happening faster than projections, then it's gonna get really REALLY bad within the next couple generations, because the CO2 isn't going anywhere for at least 1000-3000 years. So, the warming will continue until the temperature/CO2 balance equilibrates.

Yeah. Too many people act like the temp will rise 2 degrees and then level off there. NOT. It keeps rising.

Ditto for rising seal levels. They keep rising.

Ditto for extinctions. Species keep dying off.

Ditto for the loss of arable land and the decline of marine food sources.

It's time for some here to stop acting like this is a game and that being stupid about climate change is amusing.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

No, you can't.

Sure I can. You millenials think you started this man-made climate change nonsense, but you didn't. Your parents did.

Up till the 80s, it was all about the coming ice age. This "That ice age stuff never existed' is a meme the theorists invented to explain why they ditched it in favor of the global warming idea.

People were skeptical then, and when we saw the melting ice, we thought the theorists would finally concede they were wrong about the threat of an ice age. Instead, they spun that this PROVED the ice age was almost here, cause the melting ice would super cool the earth's ocean.

Now, same theorists claim melting ice will somehow RAISE the temperature of the ocean, accelerating 'global warming'.

Constantly moving goalposts. I've been debating this topic longer than most of you have been born, long enough to see the entire focus change.

That's what happens when you want to believe, but can't prove it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You have no clue what you are talking about.......scientists were not predicting an imminent ice age back then. There were 49 peer-reviewed articles concerning Climate between 1965 and 1979 and 42 of them were predicting warming due to atmospheric CO2.

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Thanks for doing this.

Again.

Keep it handy. You'll need it again in a month or 2.

Or in a post or 2, as the case may be.

 

[Joes Place]

Sure I can. You millenials think you started this man-made climate change nonsense, but you didn't. Your parents did.

Up till the 80s, it was all about the coming ice age. This "That ice age stuff never existed' is a meme the theorists invented to explain why they ditched it in favor of the global warming idea.

Again, no. But you are a prime example of how well the fossil fuel industry propaganda works.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You have no clue what you are talking about...

Now I've got millennials telling me what conversations I was having while their parents were flunking out of community college LOL

I think the point is, your parents didn't know what they were talking about then, and you don't know what you are talking about now.

Want to change that? Then show us the proof that man-made climate change is a real thing.

Till then, you are just flapping your gums.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Up till the 80s, it was all about the coming ice age. This "That ice age stuff never existed' is a meme the theorists invented to explain why they ditched it in favor of the global warming idea.

And again:

You have no clue what you are talking about.......scientists were not predicting an imminent ice age back then. There were 49 peer-reviewed articles concerning Climate between 1965 and 1979 and 42 of them were predicting warming due to atmospheric CO2.

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

 

[unIowa]

To the people who are truly concerned about this, I am one, they make these things called solar panels that create electricity without burning up carbon based fuels. You can even put them up on your property and eliminate your electric bill all together and the awesome thing is they carry a positive ROI so it is a win for the environment, a win for business, and a win for your pocketbook in the long run.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Again, no. But you are a prime example of how well the fossil fuel industry propaganda works.

How is that propaganda legal?

How is it any different from inciting a mob to commit violence - other than the slower pace of the deadly result?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

And again:

Don't tell me, tell your parents who were convinced that we would all be under 100 feet of solid ice by now.

Today, their children believe the planet will be 120 degrees F in 50 years.

But the one constant is the fear-mongering hucksters make money today, as they did then.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And again:

You could post it a hundred times and the deniers would simply come back in the next thread with the same stupidity....which, as we know, can't be fixed.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Now I've got millennials telling me what conversations I was having while their parents were flunking out of community college LOL

I think the point is, your parents didn't know what they were talking about then, and you don't know what you are talking about now.

Want to change that? Then show us the proof that man-made climate change is a real thing.

Till then, you are just flapping your gums.

Maybe you should stop getting your science from Time/Newsweek and parents who flunked out community college.........and this begs the question, where did you go to college and what's your degree?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

To the people who are truly concerned about this, I am one, they make these things called solar panels that create electricity without burning up carbon based fuels. You can even put them up on your property and eliminate your electric bill all together and the awesome thing is they carry a positive ROI so it is a win for the environment, a win for business, and a win for your pocketbook in the long run.

But they are very expensive and in many areas it can take years if not decades to break even on the investment. Plus they are a major eye sore.

I think in a decade or two the technology could be at a place where the power output is much greater and the cost is much lower. But sadly, it will take a while.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Maybe you should stop getting your science from Time/Newsweek and parents who flunked out community college.........and this begs the question, where did you go to college and what's your degree?

Well, what are YOUR qualifications???

(Yes, I already know. I just like seeing them.)

 

[Joes Place]

News Coverage of Coal’s Link to Global Warming, in 1912

Scientific analysis pointing to a human role in warming the climate through burning fossil fuels goes back to 1896, with Svante Arrhenius’s remarkable paper, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid [Carbon Dioxide] in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.”

Starting in the late 1930s, Guy Stewart Callendar, a British engineer and amateur meteorologist, stirred the field by calculating that rising carbon dioxide levels were already warming the climate. Check out his 1938 paper on the subject: “The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and Its Influence on Temperature.”

By 1956, The New York Times was writing on combustion-driven global warming.

But when did news coverage begin?

A link to that article:

https://books.google.com/books?id=T...PAhUa3YMKHfCZDLQQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q&f=false

And, another:
https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/coals-link-to-global-warming-explained-in-1912/

 

[Joes Place]

But they are very expensive and in many areas it can take years if not decades to break even on the investment.

Not remotely true.

Investment pays back in about 10-12 years, then pays 'free energy' for another 15-20 years.

Wind is an even better investment.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Maybe you should stop getting your science from Time/Newsweek and parents who flunked out community college.........and this begs the question, where did you go to college and what's your degree?

So I should listen to you instead? You can't prove your theory anymore than your patents could.

I didn't listen to them, so why would I listen to you?

Again, the same hucksters are still making money.

I'm not against climate change. Climate change is VERY real and always has been. It was before man got here and will be long after we are gone.

I'm against the idea of accepting your theory without seeing proof that it's reality.

Show me the proof, and I'm completely onboard. Till you can, skeptics will continue to push back and ask you questions.

You need to grow up and accept that. It's part of life.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Well, what are YOUR qualifications???

(Yes, I already know. I just like seeing them.)

B.S. Natural Science Specialization, UWF 2001
M.S. Biogeography, FSU 2007

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

To the people who are truly concerned about this, I am one, they make these things called solar panels that create electricity without burning up carbon based fuels. You can even put them up on your property and eliminate your electric bill all together and the awesome thing is they carry a positive ROI so it is a win for the environment, a win for business, and a win for your pocketbook in the long run.

I wish I could without spending thousands to cut down giant trees on my property.

I need the energy I use - frugal though I am - to come from green sources. A lot of people are in my situation.

Government action is what makes sense for most Americans - whether they are homeowners with lots of trees, or limited budgets, or live in apartments or condos, or run businesses that can't add panels or windmills.

Most city dwellers have no choice to put up solar panels or windmills.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Not remotely true.

Investment pays back in about 10-12 years, then pays 'free energy' for another 15-20 years.

Wind is an even better investment.

LMAO! This is why most people tune you man-made climate change theorists out.

Did you see what you did? You said my claim that solar panels took years to break even was "not remotely true', then you AGREED with me and said it pays back in about 10-12 years LMAO!

You guys are so invested in being right about this stuff that you even attack people who say things you agree with.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You need to grow up and accept that. It's part of life.

So is dying of an infection.

Or you could take medicine.

 

[Joes Place]

LMAO! This is why most people tune you man-made climate change theorists out.

You said "decades".

It takes barely ONE decade, and then you get two more decades of essentially FREE energy.

 

[unIowa]

But they are very expensive and in many areas it can take years if not decades to break even on the investment. Plus they are a major eye sore.

I think in a decade or two the technology could be at a place where the power output is much greater and the cost is much lower. But sadly, it will take a while.

My break even is 8-9 years without taking into account the added equity it has built into my home. When taking that into account the payback is probably closer to 4-5 years.

Yes, when you lower the cost of ownership of a home (by eliminating a utility expense) you increase its valuation.I wouldn't say they are an eyesore either but yes it can detract from the aesthetics of some homes. However that shouldn't stop businesses, owners with homes on acreages (like I have), farmers from outfitting their properties to help reduce their carbon footprint and to help their pocketbooks.

It is only a big expensive burden if you don't have it on your list of priorities. If it is high up on your list of priorities it is an investment.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Yeah. Too many people act like the temp will rise 2 degrees and then level off there. NOT. It keeps rising.

Ditto for rising seal levels. They keep rising.

Ditto for extinctions. Species keep dying off.

Ditto for the loss of arable land and the decline of marine food sources.

It's time for some here to stop acting like this is a game and that being stupid about climate change is amusing.

I told you how to get more people on board. Prove it's not a theory.

I find it fascinating that you guys think skeptics aren't buying your theory just to spite you.

 

[unIowa]

I wish I could without spending thousands to cut down giant trees on my property.

I need the energy I use - frugal though I am - to come from green sources. A lot of people are in my situation.

Government action is what makes sense for most Americans - whether they are homeowners with lots of trees, or limited budgets, or live in apartments or condos, or run businesses that can't add panels or windmills.

Most city dwellers have no choice to put up solar panels or windmills.

Move to Iowa, at the very least you know your public utilities are creating nearly half of their energy from green sources (wind and solar) with a goal of reaching 100% in the not too distant future.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

You said "decades".

It takes barely ONE decade, and then you get two more decades of essentially FREE energy.

And conditions are different based on location. Some people will see the investment pay back faster than others.

But you knew that.

 

[Joes Place]

And conditions are different based on location. Some people will see the investment pay back faster than others.

But you knew that.

Translated: "Oh, shit. You were 100% right. So I need to shift my argument to something totally unrelated"

 

[fsu1jreed]

I told you how to get more people on board. Prove it's not a theory.

I find it fascinating that you guys think skeptics aren't buying your theory just to spite you.

LMAO...........you don't even understand the basics of the Scientific Theorem.

And the nearly all of the skeptics are being PAID to not buy into the theory from right-wing think tanks, fossil fuel industry, etc...........it's why they write op-eds in the Daily Mail etc. instead of publishing their "findings" in peer-reviewed journals, well that and because when it comes down to it, their "science" is as faulty as yours

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So is dying of an infection.

Or you could take medicine.

As long as the medicine is proven to work.

Would you pay $5000 a bottle for cough syrup that has a model that shows that it may stop your cough in 5-10 hours?

Of course not.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Move to Iowa, at the very least you know your public utilities are creating nearly half of their energy from green sources (wind and solar) with a goal of reaching 100% in the not too distant future.

Most people can't move to Iowa.

We need a national policy that works well for most Americans.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

And the nearly all of the skeptics are being PAID to not buy into the theory

Good lord....I've officially ODed on projection.....bless your heart.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Translated: "Oh, shit. You were 100% right. So I need to shift my argument to something totally unrelated"

Where you live has a massive impact on the effectiveness of solar panels. It's completely related to the costs associated.

Again, you are attacking me because you think I am against solar panels. I'm not, I think they have a lot of potential, but I also think that potential won't be fully realized for a few more years.

But I'm also not emotionally invested in being right about man-made climate change. So I can look at the issue objectively.

 

[Joes Place]

Where you live has a massive impact on the effectiveness of solar panels.

No one is debating that.
The point is that solar and wind are VERY economical, compared to fossil fuels.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Good lord....I've officially ODed on projection.....bless your heart.

Do you also believe that smoking is completely safe? Because the same climate skeptic "researchers" are the ones that worked for Big Tobacco back in the day

Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public

Unmasking Disinformation, from Tobacco to Climate

 

[unIowa]

Most people can't move to Iowa.

We need a national policy that works well for most Americans.

If you eliminate all the pollution TX ships across the globe they do even better in producing green energy for their citizens so that is an alternative state to move to.

Also, CA recently put up regulations that any new home built requires panels. That is a good building requirement IMO.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

from right-wing think tanks, fossil fuel industry, etc...........it's why they write op-eds in the Daily Mail etc. instead of publishing their "findings" in peer-reviewed journals, well that and because when it comes down to it, their "science" is as faulty as yours

What about left-wing think tanks funding those models that you millennials go gah-gah over? Never thought that maybe they are pushing their own agendas? Ever thought that they might be backed by special interest groups who are paying politicians to push for a certain regulation that hurts their competition and helps them?

 

[fsu1jreed]

What about left-wing think tanks funding those models that you millennials go gah-gah over? Never thought that maybe they are pushing their own agendas? Ever thought that they might be backed by special interest groups who are paying politicians to push for a certain regulation that hurts their competition and helps them?

It's why I go straight to the peer-reviewed journals for my science...........not the media, not left OR right wing think tanks, etc.

 

[Joes Place]

What about left-wing think tanks funding those models that you millennials go gah-gah over?

Huh? What 'models'? What 'left wing think tanks'?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Do you also believe that smoking is completely safe? Because the same climate skeptic "researchers" are the ones that worked for Big Tobacco back in the day

And who told you that? The people that coached you on how to deal with skeptics of man-made climate change.

Again, we aren't skeptical because we are against your theory, we are skeptical because it IS a theory.

Not everyone in life is going to believe in the same things you do, based on simply faith. You have to show some people the PROOF.

You can't. You see things happen and attribute it to man's actions, when you can't prove it is. You believe and for you, that's enough.

For some people, that's not enough. If you want to change our minds, then you have to accept why we don't believe, and give us a reason to believe.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

It's why I go straight to the peer-reviewed journals for my science...........not the media, not left OR right wing think tanks, etc.

And the academics get grants for their work. Those need funding.

Incredible that you can see how this would work for skeptics, but not for proponents. Critical thinking is lost when emotional investment takes over.

 

[Joes Place]

And who told you that? The people that coached you on how to deal with skeptics of man-made climate change.

Again, we aren't skeptical because we are against your theory, we are skeptical because it IS a theory.

You do not understand what a "theory" is, spud.

It's not a "theory". It is a "hypothesis", and that "hypothesis" has been proven correct with corroborating facts.