patrick.net

Ironman says

Who knows, humans weren't around then.

Oh, Science knows. The atmosphere for most of that was completely unbreathable.

Ironman says

So, CO2 ppm levels (chemical makeup) inside are different than CO2 ppm levels outside?? Can plants tell the difference inside or outside?

Does CO2 change in form from inside to outside?

You are saying respiration and gaseous exchange is the same as trapping heat radiation?
We aren't talking breathing, we are talking heat energy in the planetary engine, driving weather.

Ironman says

So, since the science is settled NOW, are we there yet?

We have moved past it, by a degree and at-leats 50ppm.

Ironman says

Let me know when it gets pass 1500 ppm

At that level no human will be able to do any strenuous activity. A brisk walk up a hill will cause you to pass out.
Further, the long term climate trend would be to temperatures that wouldn't sustain most life on the planet. A new dominant species would rise. Humanity would end.

Hater says

Why are you alarmists always manipulating graphs?

Because skeptics cannot read them to begin with.

Hater says

Why are you alarmists always manipulating graphs?

Just like polls, graphs and statistics are there to influence, not to inform.

Alarmists will manipulate graphs because they are definitely trying to influence.

Peter P says

I suspect those "climate scientists" are hedge-fund rejects. I doubt they can even survive in the sell-side.

We should stop listening to people with no skin in the game.

So you're saying we should stop listening to those of you that don't have children? Or even elderly people that will be dead soon?

It doesn't take a climate scientist, or even some lowly hedge fund turd, to understand that polluting the environment has adverse effects. What do you have against people who desire to protect the environment so that it can be enjoyed into the future?

They were probably prostitutes fighting over territory.

errc says

It doesn't take a climate scientist, or even some lowly hedge fund turd, to understand that polluting the environment has adverse effects. What do you have against people who desire to protect the environment so that it can be enjoyed into the future?

Pollution is bad. But what is pollution?

Why is CO2 considered a pollutant? Without those crappy climate models the whole CO2 argument falls apart.

Yes, global temperature is rising. So what?

Hater says

Nothing! Pollution and overpopulation are the problems to be solved!

The beauty is that IF those climate models are right "climate change" might solve overpopulation. See, we don't need to do anything.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/04/25/ted-cruz-calls-14-billion-seized-el-chapo-fund-border-wall/

Annnnnnd here we go.

What is the ideal Human population of Earth? How do you know that overpopulation is a problem ?

Strategist says

This is called an economic recovery. Not the phony recovery that went on for years under Obama.

Trump did in less than a 100 days, what Obama could not do in 8 years.

Thank You President Trump. America loves you.

Great-please show me the difference. With data and analysis.

Ironman says

So tell me in the following graph, which temperature is inhabitable in your area?

Average temperature is the thing we are measuring. Think of it as net total energy in the system. We will still be living with 2-4 degree average temp rise. There will just be some major climate and life impacting changes for billions of people.

Hater says

Just to confirm, you think the ideal temp is one degree cooler and the ideal CO2 ppm is 350?

I think that because the majority of the scientific world thinks that. Yes. We are at 400ppm, and growing by 2ppm per year, due to human fossil fuel use.

Peter P says

The beauty is that IF those climate models are right "climate change" might solve overpopulation.

Mass deaths due to climate extremes is beautiful?

We have the collective capacity as human to ensure an amazing lifestyle to the majority of the planet. We don't have the will to do it. Current social constructs don't work that way.

joeyjojojunior says

Strategist says

This is called an economic recovery. Not the phony recovery that went on for years under Obama.


Trump did in less than a 100 days, what Obama could not do in 8 years.


Thank You President Trump. America loves you.

Great-please show me the difference. With data and analysis.

Spring housing: 'Strongest seller's market ever'.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/spring-housing-strongest-sellers-market-ever.html

Stocks extend gains, Dow rises 250 points on strong earnings; Nasdaq above 6,000
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/25/us-markets.html
-

-

Border rancher: Illegal crossings down 90% since Trump became president
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/border-rancher-illegal-crossings-90-since-trump-became-president/

Rew says

We have the collective capacity as human to ensure an amazing lifestyle to the majority of the planet.

That is an idealized vision of humanity. It is not part of our nature.

I propose a global one-child policy. In particular, each person is allotted the credit to have half a child. Such reproduction credits can be traded freely. Those who want to have many children can buy more credits from the open market. Those who do not want kids can sell their credits.

Here. CAP-AND-TRADE.

I propose a global one-child policy. In particular, each person is allotted the credit to have half a child.

-----------

That is an idealized vision of humanity. It is not part of our nature.

Difference between Trump & an accordion,
the accordion is not full of HOT AIR!

or BULLSHIT!

or LIES!

Ironman says

OK, so if it's average temperatures that matter, and a 2 - 4 degree rise will be catastrophic to humans, please explain this phenomena

Over the past 10,000+ years the average temperature has fluctuated about 1 degree or less. That small fluctuation is the difference between "fire and ice".

How much heat does it take to boil a cup of water? How much does it take to boil an ocean of water? Do you understand the amount of energy 1 degree is in a huge system like our climate?

With 2 to 4 degrees of warming the Earth experiences massive shifts in weather, catastrophic storms, mega droughts, the coastlines are forever changed, mass migrations and climate refugees occur, and then there is the disruptions to food chains. Crops that survive will experience yields drops of over 10%. An estimated 25% of plant species will lose in excess of half their current habitat coverage. Water stress for the US alone will affect 1.5 billion people or greater. It's Mad Max time.

Hater says

anthropomorphic

It's anthropogenic.

Each day our great president is doing something to make our country great again. And, all the fake "antifa" news outlets can do is spread traitorous lies about his approval ratings, how he hasn't lived up to his campaign promises, how he let his supporters down, etc... For the record, all the patriots I spoke to are thrilled to have Trump as President. Just look at the economy in the past 4 months. Thank God for Trump. All of Hillary's supporters are mob rule, communist, terrorist, traitors. That pig would never have had this kind of recovery in this short period of time, if ever. Go trump. Build that wall. Next, he needs to sign an executive order getting rid of all Latin anchor babies. USA!

Tim Aurora says

You also are a paid bot

I'm glad you finally admit that's what you are, Tim. Now I can stop paying any attention to you.

YesYNot says

Science is settled by theory and experiment. It is not settled by debate. Debate is just what you have before science is settled, before people become aware of the speed science, and to a lesser extent when some new evidence comes along that seems to contradict known theories. Occasionally it does contradict and change things, but usually it just needs an explanation.

Real science is never settled. Science always leave a room for skepticism, otherwise its religion not science.

The assuredness w which climate activists state ridiculous predictions (An Inconvenient Truth) is religion. Its usually an expression of faith, not science.

For those of you who have researched this, please recommend an intellectually honest reading list.

CBOEtrader says

For those of you who have researched this, please recommend an intellectually honest reading list.

Start with the IPCC report. Follow the references. Draw your own conclusions.

As for settled science, settled is a relative term. Things settle. Sometimes, they get disrupted. You can say that the theory of gravity is not settled. It's quite possible that someone will come along with another theory that puts gravity inside a larger theory. It's often possible that what works fine within some wide set of conditions (Newtonian physics) cannot be extrapolated. That doesn't mean that Newtonian physics is proved wrong. If we get into distracted about the meaning of settled and set a really high bar for something being settled, that is meaningless. What we should focus on is quantifying risk.

When most scientists state that parts of climate change theory are settled, that does not mean that they know what the temperature is going to be next year with a high degree of accuracy. It also doesn't mean that they can predict what the temperature is going to be in 50 years. It means that they can run various scenarios and determine within a given range what the average temperature is likely to be (by average I mean global average temperature over a 10 year period). If you want to see the scenarios (how much pollution we emit going forward) that are being used, and the estimates of global average temperature and risk, look at the IPCC reports.

CBOEtrader says

which climate activists state ridiculous predictions (An Inconvenient Truth) is religion

Like many 'documentary' films, an inconvenient truth was a heavily narrative laden movie by an activist. If you want to say that the scientists had it wrong, go look at what the scientists said. Don't refute part of a movie by an activist and claim that the science was wrong. That's just tragically bad logic. Here is a quote from the first page of the executive summary of the first IPCC report:

Based on current model results, we predict:
* under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
*global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0.3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0.2°C to 0.5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years. This will result in a
likely increase in global mean temperature of about
1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3°C before
the end of the next century The rise will not be
steady because of the influence of other factors

Note that even back in 1990, the IPCC report was pretty accurate. They didn't know how fast China's or India's economy would grow. They had to predict what fossil fuel emissions would be as well as how the earth's climate would respond. They stated right up front that the rise would not be steady (there is a high noise to signal ratio). How did they do?

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

Tell your friends and family, come to Patrick.net. Where you will be beaten into submission by stupidity and negativity! It's highly contagious 😷

What we should focus on is quantifying risk.

-----------

The lost Art of a once great Capitalist Nation. nowadays people just buy more insurance and oddly bitch about taxes, regardless of how terrible a deal it is, and defer that which made them Capitalist in the first place. As evidenced here over and over, the education system needs to teach people how to do a cost benefit analysis, because they've lost that skill over time.

Democrat leadership baffled as massive number of voters leave the party.

YesYNot says

What we should focus on is quantifying risk.

That would make too much sense. We need to debate the risk. If the 97% of climate scientists are wrong, maybe there is no risk.

Funny, a bank or clearing firms risk manager would get fired instantly for such stupid rationalizations (unless it was the risk that his boss was taking on that he argued was debatable).

marcus says

YesYNot says

What we should focus on is quantifying risk.

That would make too much sense. We need to debate the risk. If the 97% of climate scientists are wrong, maybe there is no risk.

Funny, a bank or clearing firms risk manager would get fired instantly for just stupid rationalizations (unless it was the risk that his boss was taking on that he argued was debatable).

We need to start only listening to people with skin in the game

joeyjojojunior says

Great-please show me the difference. With data and analysis.

Do your own research, troll!

www.youtube.com/embed/y2R3FvS4xr4

Quigley says

Do your own research, troll!

No money from Mexico.
No Wall.
No Ghina currency manipulator.
No 35% tariff.
No Repeal.
No Replace.
NATO was obsolete,now it's not.
Russia's great,now it's not.

Stupid people believe LIES.

"Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh lamented Tuesday that President Donald Trump is “caving” to Democrats,"

"..it looks like President Trump is caving on his demand for a measly $1 billion in the budget for his wall on the border with Mexico.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/rush-limbaugh-donald-trump-border-wall-237594

And the Goldman Sachs SWAMP?

HEY YOU says

"Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh lamented Tuesday that President Donald Trump is “caving” to Democrats,"

"..it looks like President Trump is caving on his demand for a measly $1 billion in the budget for his wall on the border with Mexico.”

Why aren't you happy? Isn't that what you want?