All Things Environment

[Typical Lax Dad]

What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?

I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.

So not formally educated...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/03/us/washi ... index.html

( it was a joke, btw.... you don’t have to go to college to be smart or educated. You can educate yourself with independent reading and research efforts)

[Cooter]

What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?

I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.

You haven't learned well, because the Earth's motion is mostly controlled by the Sun's gravitation field.

The atmosphere around the Earth is a thin layer composed of gas, which is low density. There is little doubt that man has changed the composition of it by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide. Another thing that man changed was the size and amount of ozone in the Ozone layer due to the use of CFCs. The Ozone layer blocks ultraviolet light from the Sun. CFC's were banned in the last century, and supposedly the ozone layer is healing, but it is a slow process.

[RedFromMI]

What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?

I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.

You haven't learned well, because the Earth's motion is mostly controlled by the Sun's gravitation field.

The atmosphere around the Earth is a thin layer composed of gas, which is low density. There is little doubt that man has changed the composition of it by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide. Another thing that man changed was the size and amount of ozone in the Ozone layer due to the use of CFCs. The Ozone layer blocks ultraviolet light from the Sun. CFC's were banned in the last century, and supposedly the ozone layer is healing, but it is a slow process.

It has gotten much better - and it was a case where the science was clear, and global action was taken. And while the success has not been "instantaneous" it is coming.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?

I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.

You haven't learned well, because the Earth's motion is mostly controlled by the Sun's gravitation field.

The atmosphere around the Earth is a thin layer composed of gas, which is low density. There is little doubt that man has changed the composition of it by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide. Another thing that man changed was the size and amount of ozone in the Ozone layer due to the use of CFCs. The Ozone layer blocks ultraviolet light from the Sun. CFC's were banned in the last century, and supposedly the ozone layer is healing, but it is a slow process.

It has gotten much better - and it was a case where the science was clear, and global action was taken. And while the success has not been "instantaneous" it is coming.

Instantaneous is relative.

[RedFromMI]

What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?

I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.

You haven't learned well, because the Earth's motion is mostly controlled by the Sun's gravitation field.

The atmosphere around the Earth is a thin layer composed of gas, which is low density. There is little doubt that man has changed the composition of it by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide. Another thing that man changed was the size and amount of ozone in the Ozone layer due to the use of CFCs. The Ozone layer blocks ultraviolet light from the Sun. CFC's were banned in the last century, and supposedly the ozone layer is healing, but it is a slow process.

It has gotten much better - and it was a case where the science was clear, and global action was taken. And while the success has not been "instantaneous" it is coming.

Instantaneous is relative.

So is simultaneity...

[Typical Lax Dad]

What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?

I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.

You haven't learned well, because the Earth's motion is mostly controlled by the Sun's gravitation field.

The atmosphere around the Earth is a thin layer composed of gas, which is low density. There is little doubt that man has changed the composition of it by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide. Another thing that man changed was the size and amount of ozone in the Ozone layer due to the use of CFCs. The Ozone layer blocks ultraviolet light from the Sun. CFC's were banned in the last century, and supposedly the ozone layer is healing, but it is a slow process.

It has gotten much better - and it was a case where the science was clear, and global action was taken. And while the success has not been "instantaneous" it is coming.

Instantaneous is relative.

So is simultaneity...

[cradleandshoot]

What did you major in in college 6ftstick?
How about you Peter Brown?
And you CradleAndShoot?

I have 2 PhD degrees. One from the college of hard knocks and the second from the college of common sense. My thesis for the college of common sense is the earth will do what it wants, where it wants, when it wants and how it wants. I don't say this to be disrespectful, anyone who thinks stupid little humans can change that is fooling themselves. There is an enormous difference between being good stewards of our planet and playing the role of God. It is also interesting that a byproduct of "saving the planet" coincidentally makes certain people a boatload full of money.

So not formally educated...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/03/us/washi ... index.html

( it was a joke, btw.... you don’t have to go to college to be smart or educated. You can educate yourself with independent reading and research efforts)

My reply was a joke to BTW. I have read enough to know that no rational or sane person would ever try and predict what the climate will be or what cataclysmic events could happen 50 years from now. You folks out there call it being concerned for the earth. I call it fear mongering and trying to scare people to your school of thought. Is there any one there that can explain the mechanism on how all of your ideas will reverse all that you fear? I guess the plan is to cross your fingers, knock on wood and to hope like heck your ideas will work. I guess it revolves around the BHO philosophy of hope and change. This one we can call... we hope that it will change.

[Cooter]

My reply was a joke to BTW. I have read enough to know that no rational or sane person would ever try and predict what the climate will be or what cataclysmic events could happen 50 years from now. You folks out there call it being concerned for the earth. I call it fear mongering and trying to scare people to your school of thought. Is there any one there that can explain the mechanism on how all of your ideas will reverse all that you fear? I guess the plan is to cross your fingers, knock on wood and to hope like heck your ideas will work. I guess it revolves around the BHO philosophy of hope and change. This one we can call... we hope that it will change.

Scientists often like to apply probabilities to the chance that certain cataclysmic events will happen in some period of time.

[cradleandshoot]

My reply was a joke to BTW. I have read enough to know that no rational or sane person would ever try and predict what the climate will be or what cataclysmic events could happen 50 years from now. You folks out there call it being concerned for the earth. I call it fear mongering and trying to scare people to your school of thought. Is there any one there that can explain the mechanism on how all of your ideas will reverse all that you fear? I guess the plan is to cross your fingers, knock on wood and to hope like heck your ideas will work. I guess it revolves around the BHO philosophy of hope and change. This one we can call... we hope that it will change.

Scientists often like to apply probabilities to the chance that certain cataclysmic events will happen in some period of time.

I have said here before on a number of occasions, I would be more concerned about what is bubbling up at yellowstone than would be about anything global warming can put on the table.


https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... upted.html
You folks can predict what CC/GW may bring. Yellowstone has already laid her cards on the table. You folks can worry about what might happen or what will happen sooner or later.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

You have anyone else you follow?

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

You have anyone else you follow?

All I asked was for you to read the article and keep an open mind. I guess the open mind part is not in your tool chest.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

You have anyone else you follow?

All I asked was for you to read the article and keep an open mind. I guess the open mind part is not in your tool chest.

I have read enough of him. Have you read anyone else?

https://science.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

You have anyone else you follow?

All I asked was for you to read the article and keep an open mind. I guess the open mind part is not in your tool chest.

I have read enough of him. Have you read anyone else?

Yes I have, quite a few. I posted this article because I believe Dr Spencer takes a very rational look at CC/GW. If you read it and have an open mind you might be surprised at what Dr Spencer is saying.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

You have anyone else you follow?

All I asked was for you to read the article and keep an open mind. I guess the open mind part is not in your tool chest.

I have read enough of him. Have you read anyone else?

Yes I have, quite a few. I posted this article because I believe Dr Spencer takes a very rational look at CC/GW. If you read it and have an open mind you might be surprised at what Dr Spencer is saying.

Let me know your thoughts on this:

https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/clima ... -00062.pdf

Roy Spencer is consistent in his belief. Science is built on consensus. Without a doubt, the consensus among his peers is that man is contributing to climate change due to increasing amounts of green house gases being released. You can believe that the green house gas model is inaccurate if you want.

[RedFromMI]

My reply was a joke to BTW. I have read enough to know that no rational or sane person would ever try and predict what the climate will be or what cataclysmic events could happen 50 years from now. You folks out there call it being concerned for the earth. I call it fear mongering and trying to scare people to your school of thought. Is there any one there that can explain the mechanism on how all of your ideas will reverse all that you fear? I guess the plan is to cross your fingers, knock on wood and to hope like heck your ideas will work. I guess it revolves around the BHO philosophy of hope and change. This one we can call... we hope that it will change.

Scientists often like to apply probabilities to the chance that certain cataclysmic events will happen in some period of time.

I have said here before on a number of occasions, I would be more concerned about what is bubbling up at yellowstone than would be about anything global warming can put on the table.


https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2 ... upted.html
You folks can predict what CC/GW may bring. Yellowstone has already laid her cards on the table. You folks can worry about what might happen or what will happen sooner or later.

The Yellowstone supervolcano erupts roughly every 600K years. It has been about that long since the last eruption. (I know these things because I have used Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything for a class on science history and philosophy many times - please read it is highly entertaining as well as informative)

But the chance it erupts even in the next 100 years, for example is quite tiny. Maybe not as tiny as winning the Powerball, but still pretty close to zero. And there is a good chance that there would be changes that would signal an eruption before it happens. (There have been plenty of changes within the park boundaries during my 60+ year lifetime - supervolcano diameter pretty close to the park boundaries - but nothing like what would be likely before it blew). One of the older eruptions took out something like 40 miles of mountain range to one side.

Much, much greater chance the scientists are right about climate change. Not as vanishingly small. Even if you don't think the scientists can possibly be correct - are you willing to put up with the much greater likelihood of that happening? Or at least plan on some changes to minimize the effects?

Especially if those changes can make other improvements in our lives?

[Typical Lax Dad]

I noticed Cradleandshoot has no response to the article I linked.

[Cooter]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

It is perhaps true that there could be some other cause for the Global warming, at least, in part.
It is fair to note that Spencer's list was written 9 years before the 2018 article you link to, or in 2009.
Since 2009, the world temperature has pretty steadily gone up and by .32 degrees. This increase has caused more and more people to believe the increase in Greenhouse gas is most likely the major cause.
Further, the amount of Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is something that man can change over time.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

It is perhaps true that there could be some other cause for the Global warming, at least, in part.
It is fair to note that Spencer's list was written 9 years before the 2018 article you link to, or in 2009.
Since 2009, the world temperature has pretty steadily gone up and by .32 degrees. This increase has caused more and more people to believe the increase in Greenhouse gas is most likely the major cause.
Further, the amount of Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is something that man can change over time.

Don't confuse him with science.

[6ftstick]

https://www.masterresource.org/climate- ... te-change/

I know Dr Spencer is as popular to some folks here as a case of the clap. This article is worth a read. If you are capable of still having an open mind on the subject.

It is perhaps true that there could be some other cause for the Global warming, at least, in part.
It is fair to note that Spencer's list was written 9 years before the 2018 article you link to, or in 2009.
Since 2009, the world temperature has pretty steadily gone up and by .32 degrees. This increase has caused more and more people to believe the increase in Greenhouse gas is most likely the major cause.
Further, the amount of Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is something that man can change over time.

Don't confuse him with science.

Guess you climate changer global warmers missed this earlier. Science has nothing to do with it.

1.In 1989, the Associated Press relayed a warning from a U.N. official:

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."

2. The same U.N. official who predicted the loss of entire nations by the year 2000 also claimed: "the most conservative scientific estimate [is] that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years.”

But looking back from 2019, the temperature rose about half of a degree Celsius since 1989, according to NASA.

3. In 2006, while promoting his movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, Al Gore said that humanity had only 10 years left before the world would reach a point of no return.

Gore’s movie also featured animations of water inundating Manhattan and Florida.

4. In 1982, U.N. official Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Program, warned:

“By the turn of the century, an environmental catastrophe will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible, as any nuclear holocaust.”

5. In 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wisc., – often considered the “father of Earth Day” – cited the secretary of the Smithsonian, who “believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

6. Economist Walter E. Williams says environmentalists have occasionally tipped their hand about what motivates their predictions.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have,” Stephen Schneider, a professor of Biology at Stanford University, said to Discover magazine in 1989. “Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

7. in 1988 Timothy Wirth, a Democrat from Colorado said: "We've got to ... try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong ... we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."