E.P.A. Scrubs a Climate Website of ‘Climate Change’

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

 

You are korek.  But the farther the distance, the longer it takes things to be felt here that happen out there.

  

    True, and as in the case of the relationship between the earth and the sun, the inverse is correct as well. That distance, as you inferred, would be measured in light minutes.

 

    I think you may be referring to things like Milankovitch cycles and such exerting their effect on climate over periods of thousands of years, not light years. That the climate changes naturally over extended periods of time does not preclude humans also exerting effects in the short term. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So what is the fix, eliminate humanity so the planet can get back into balance?  Btw, who decides what the ideal balance is?

 

  Ultimately, if the current trend continues and we don't do anything, one of the "fixes" may be population collapse, secondary to a collapse in the food chain. The planet will be in balance regardless. I'm not sure ideal is the right word to describe where we are heading either way.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

58 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Whether it takes 8.6 minutes for radiant energy to come from the sun to earth or 8.6 months, the sun from eons ago is not creating warming or cooling in our atmosphere.

Yes I realize that.  Forgive me, I was typing in a hurry and on my phone (always gets NB a bye, eh)?

 

But there are other explosive events in the cosmos that take years to reach us.  And those events are powerful beyond compare to anything we have experienced here on earth.  

[TBoneTX 46,125]

3 hours ago, IDWAF said:

thereunto

One of the all-time coolest words, along with:

yak

tortfeasor

springbok

cattywampus

 

On-topic because of the use of "coolest" above.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, IDWAF said:

Yes I realize that.  Forgive me, I was typing in a hurry and on my phone (always gets NB a bye, eh)?

 

But there are other explosive events in the cosmos that take years to reach us.  And those events are powerful beyond compare to anything we have experienced here on earth.  

what do any of those explosive events have to do with the rise of measurable CO2 in our atmosphere?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

what do any of those explosive events have to do with the rise of measurable CO2 in our atmosphere?

Heat.  Lots of it.  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Heat.  Lots of it.  

Nope

 

[Dashinka 24,798]

20 hours ago, Póg mo said:

This comment is very similar to something you said in another thread, where you asked sarcastically what should we do, ban all guns? This leads to conclude that you aren't interested finding solutions or just refuse to admit there even is a problem. Anyway, the ideal balance in the case of global climate change would be to attempt to limit carbon emissions to a point where they are no longer negatively effecting the Earth's climate and helping the planet to return to pre industrial global temperatures, failing that we should at least be attempting to reduce carbon emissions increases to where the planet has more time to adapt to climate change, and some of the worst effects of climate change can be ameliorated. 

I think it is a valid question to the "sky is falling" crowd.  How do you know where the carbon balance is for the entire globe?  How do you measure the impacts?  What is so special about the pre-industrial global temperatures, and do we even have a good measure of those to make a valid comparison?  What if the proposals tip the scales the other way and trigger an ice age, do we then promote carbon fuel burning (cold kills way more people than hot)?  The point is that there is one crowd that blames a small increase in global temperatures (based on the values, it is questionable if it is even statistically significant) entirely on humanity's inputs, and seems to like to ignore any natural phenomenon that may be occurring, and another crowd that is more skeptical of that assertion.  Of course the first crowd wants to completely silence the other crowd (let's dump the 1st Amendment) in very fascist ways, but we should just ignore that since the science consensus is in.  The planet has already adapted to many climate change cycles, so I don't know what humanity can do to help this one along, but sure, keep thinking that.  Btw, no one knows what the worst effects of a small amount of warming will be, there are a lot of guesses that are veiled in "science", but they are in fact just "SWAGs".

[Dashinka 24,798]

15 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

what do any of those explosive events have to do with the rise of measurable CO2 in our atmosphere?

How do you know that CO2 or in other words plant food, is the major forcing factor?  Was there a science poll taken?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

How do you know that CO2 or in other words plant food, is the major forcing factor?  Was there a science poll taken?

Forcing factor for what?

[Dashinka 24,798]

5 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Forcing factor for what?

The forcing factor for AGW? 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

38 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The forcing factor for AGW? 

Anthropogenic Global Warming?  You have stated on several occasions the warming is not man made so I don't understand your question. Are you looking for a break down between co2 and methane?

[Dashinka 24,798]

56 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Anthropogenic Global Warming?  You have stated on several occasions the warming is not man made so I don't understand your question. Are you looking for a break down between co2 and methane?

CO2, CH4, H2O, solar effects, oceanic cycles, etc.  How has CO2, which is a fairly weak GHG compared to others become the cause dejure of the MDL as the major forcing factor of man made global warming?  I realize the MDL is against Big Oil and stuff, so this whole thing seems like a political tactic.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

16 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Nope

 

 Hmmm.  I see cosmic ray count going up, as well as global temps.  Yet you say nope.  Ok. You win.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

10 hours ago, IDWAF said:

 Hmmm.  I see cosmic ray count going up, as well as global temps.  Yet you say nope.  Ok. You win.

 

 

        Interesting how you posted the chart but left out the rest of the analysis.

   

What's the link between cosmic rays and climate change? Link to this page What the science says... Select a level...  Basic    Intermediate    Advanced     Hypothetically, an increasing solar magnetic field could deflect galactic cosmic rays, which hypothetically seed low-level clouds, thus decreasing the Earth's reflectivity and causing global warming. However, it turns out that none of these hypotheticals are occurring in reality, and if cosmic rays were able to influence global temperatures, they would be having a cooling effect. Climate Myth... It's cosmic rays "When the Sun is active, its magnetic field is better at shielding us against the cosmic rays coming from outer space, before they reach our planet. By regulating the Earth’s cloud cover, the Sun can turn the temperature up and down. ... As the Sun’s magnetism doubled in strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming seen then."  (Henrik Svensmark)