Your internet is either broken or your just not bothering to use it.



This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)
about ice cores (external site).



- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change


The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2
Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks.
This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change:

 

Global warming and climate issues aside, the crap that comes out of a tailpipe isn't exactly GOOD for anyone. I like looking out my window and seeing ground and sky instead of the inside of a smog cloud. That alone is enough reason for emissions controls on vehicles. When I lived in Colorado, you could be 50-100 miles away from Denver and still see the haze of the city. Nothing like sitting on a horse on a fine crisp fall morning, in the shade of of big fir tree, deer dancing across the pasture, all real picturesque and ain't it great I live here, looking across the Platte River Valley, up at the towering.... brown smog cloud completely hiding the mountains. Awesome. Probably should just get lung cancer and die before it sprawls out any worse.

Burning fossil fuels is probably 75%+ the cause of air pollution in places like Denver. The rest is largely particulate pollution from things like sanding the roads, which is directly related to..... people driving cars almost exclusively powered by fossil fuels.

 

There is smog it big cities, but no one is forcing you to live there. There have been countless predictions by "Climate Experts" that where completely false. In the 1970s when all of this started the were saying that due to human activity the Earth was on a rapid cooling trend and getting ready to go into an ice age that would starve much of the population, that never happened. Then in the 80s and 90s their was a warming trend (Global warming) and the prediction was by the 2000s most of England and other costal regions would be under water, that never happened. Now it's just called climate change since they don't really know, and just about ever natural disaster that happens is blamed on man made climate change, yet it's no different than what has been happening for thousands of years. They can't even accurately predict the weather a week ahead, yet they know what will happen 20-30 years from now? I don't think so, most of the predictions they made 20-30 years ago about today haven't happened.

 

You clearly didn't even click on and scan through the link I just posted.If you had,you would of educated yourself beyond that comment.
I think for whatever reason some people just can't come to terms with some things.Like a sort of coping mechanism.It's a system overload and the brain just might not be able to handle it.No doubt we all do this to various degrees.I think in this case here,your brain just blocked you out from even daring to read through the main page in the article I just posted.

Another thing to is,is that perhaps (I'm just guessing here based on your avatar image) that perhaps your a supporter of our current "leader".If this is the case,this might make things much more difficult to read and educate yourself because you may simply want to blindly be lead and entrust in someone to lead you,and that's ok too many people do this.
The problem with this is,your letting yourself be mislead rather than lead in the right direction.He's not well educated in matters himself and has a history of putting himself first.
I wouldn't trust any croup of people who make hundreds of laws and break them all (you wont do this either probably but you can research broken treaties to see my point and understand my point of view) and I especially wouldn't trust anyone who uses the words "coal" and "clean" in the same sentence.You can google and learn for yourself how stupid that one is.
You can't force people to learn and be open minded.This is a gift only one can give themselves.

 

I am actually not a huge Trump fan, (he is Yankee from New York you know), basically I thought he was the lesser of two evils in the last election. I agree with some of what he says and there is some I disagree with. My beliefs on climate change came long before Trump was president.

 

That's good.Some people trust in leaders and don't bother doing their own research.I hope you'll continue reading and keep an unbiased and open mind as possible.It's a struggle for us all sometimes.

 

Now you're resorting to myths, conjecture, and misinformation.....

Not true. It is actually a myth that climate deniers perpetrate repeatedly while failing to do any research whatsoever. Where did the myth originate? It came from only a couple of media stories in the mid-70's. Media stories are not peer-reviewed scientific studies, they were not written by climate experts as you claimed.

What is fact that in the 70's there were only a few peer reviewed studies that predicted only slight cooling (no ice age). A vast majority of peer-reviewed studies in the 70's predicted warming. Those are from the climate experts at that time, which in the 70's became a rapidly growing field.

Even in the modern field of climate study, there will be variations with regards to predictions. This is nothing new and it doesn't mean the experts don't know what they are doing. It means they are considering many different variations with regards to global temperature change, including natural temperature fluctuations as well as changes to human contribution.

So your claim that "countless predictions by climate experts" is not true.

Again, not true. No one claimed England would be underwater. However, many experts do warn that costal regions could be affected with rising sea levels. The amount of sea level rise is continually under debate, as well as the time frame. However, we have been tracking sea levels now very accurately for some time, and we've been tracking sea levels by satellite since the early 90's.

What experts have discovered is that the sea level has been rising for about a century, but that rate has been rapidly increasing over the last several decades.

All of these are false. The term "climate change" has been around for a long time. What you are referring to is media buzz words and attempting to apply them to scientific studies. In addition, you assume that all natural disasters are being blamed on climate change. This isn't exactly true either. Yes some instances are being used to indicate changes in global weather due to climate change, but what you are again attempting to push is media hype.

Now you're attempting to compare the evening news talking heads to being experts in climate sciences..... they are not.

Use facts when discussing a topic. Your use of myths and misinformation completely eliminates all credibility in your argument.

 

I didn't live in the city, I lived 50 miles away and worked almost 100 miles away. You're in Ohio, 100 miles is about the furthest away from anything you can get in your whole state. What's your answer going to be when "no one is forcing you to live in the Midwest?"

Oh boy, but one big prediction did come true. Remember how all of Ohio was covered in some of the worst acid rain in the country during the 1970-80s? Didn't have to live in the big city to enjoy the benefits from that little problem. This is actually a great test case for debunking your "natural phenomena and nothing else" argument - natural acid rain from volcanoes actually is the worst in the world, and when it happens it we can observe it strip entire affected areas of vegetation. We've observed the impact of lower level but more persistent acid rain and have been tracking it for eight decades across the Midwest, so we have longer time frames of data on man-mad acid rain than natural events even persist for. The real kicker is over the recorded time frame we've reduced the acidity of rain - humans have actually impacted a natural cycle in a positive way. The record shows conclusively that humans actually can impact the natural environment to the point we damage something as common as rain, and we can fix it by not dumping **** into the air. That's a real, actual fact, that has absolutely nothing to do with "climate change".

 

I'm not going to jump into this argument on whether climate change is real or not, but I do find this fascinating to research. I also find it fascinating that we tend to look at these high peaks on graphs like this and completely ignore the "correction" periods that follow after each peak. (We meaning the general public. I'm sure a scientist has a better grasp on it than I would)

If you haven't looked into dating from ice cores it is pretty interesting.

 

Still waiting for someone to explain how a greenhouse gas works. A greenhouse works because the glass traps the heat in, but a gas can't do that because of convection. I agree that we must reduce the production of CO2 dramatically, and limit our destruction of natural resources, but I resent being taken for an idiot by politicians.

 

It's a chemistry issue, you're thinking big-picture "atmosphere" when you should thinking "atomic". It has to do with how greenhouse gas molecules absorb energy in the form of infrared radiation. Diatomic molecules like O2 and N2 don't, noble gasses don't, but "greenhouse" gasses can not only absorb this radiation, but in some cases like methane absorbing the radiation will actually cause a reaction where the gas oxidizes into other, worse greenhouse gasses. Basically sun heats earth, and in the absence of greenhouse gasses all the heat radiates back into space. Some level of retention is pretty important, we need some to balance out daily temperature variations - look at daily temperature swings in desert regions where the sandy surface has very little thermal capacity to retain heat - but "global warming" is essentially saying there's too much retention - you could say that on a molecular level there are too many gas molecules in the atmosphere that are just a bit too energized. The general consensus is that we're intervening in the natural cycle too much, and could cause a chain-reaction type event where we push past whatever thresholds would naturally occur and into a non-naturally warm period. (which might not "destroy" the environment per se in that there will still be an environment, we'll have made it non-natural. metaphysics or something. Ethics isn't the point of this so far).

On a small scale you can prove this theory every winter in terms of atmospheric retention of radiant heat capture. Clear nights where you can clearly see stars typically record a colder low temperatures than nights with low, dense cloud cover. Because (brain-breaker) H20 in the form of water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The clouds act as an insulator trapping radiant heat, preventing it from being lost back to space. H20 is something like 2-5 times more concentrated in the atmosphere than the next "worst" greenhouse gas. So it seems illogical to worry about small fractions when water is the biggest contributor, because we're talking a situation where a hundred million tons of CO2 will change atmosphereic concentration a fraction of a percent, and that will only translate to a fraction of a degree of warming. But releasing carbon gasses is obviously something humans are doing, so we should at least be researching the impact. If we had done more oceanographic work fifty years ago maybe New York wouldn't have waited until 1992 to stop dumping trash in the ocean.

Back to greenhouse gasses: for sake of argument think of the atmosphere as an homogeneous mixture of it's various component gasses. If we did nothing except increase just the volume of CO2, basic chemistry says we should see a reduction in radiant heat losses to space, with a corresponding increase in atmospheric temperature. But that's where "simple" stops, because that hypothesis is unworkable in the real world. So there are eighty-bajillion ideas on how to test what should be a simple theory. Things really go off the rails when you start talking about other greenhouse gasses like Methane (CH4) oxidizing when exposed to heat to form CO2 and H2O (water), meaning one gas that doesn't seem terrible on it's face actually starts a cycle of producing more of the "bad" gasses - one of which is something as harmless as water. That's where the death spiral hysteria kicks in - somewhat outlandish things like if all the permafrost in the world melts all the currently frozen methane could be released and cause a carbon spike with heat from the sun creating more CO2 than all off humanity across it's whole history. "Tipping point" 2*C warnings stemming from concerns over creating a methane spiral are what create the sensationalist "the world will end in 2030s" headlines. But these don't seem to ever pan out because new things come up - currently the North Atlantic seems to somehow be trapping significantly more heat than was previously thought possible... so we see headlines about the North Atlantic Current "stalling" and all the fish in the world dying. Cycle of info→ bad info→ hysteria continues.

Oxidation of Methane:

 

This wasn't ignored in the article though.


We all must be very careful though when it comes to this topic and remember that either way we have a great responsibility to care for and live in harmony with mother earth.Even if you believe we're not even 1% responsible for today's change in climate,we always must value clean air and water for our children and their children's children.We can't get too side tracked about how we desperately need to move to cleaner energy methods if we're to survive.How we're living now isn't sustainable over the long term.Most importantly we need a change in culture.Right now,when we see someone speaking for the environment like this,over products made to bypass emissions controls,we look at them as "environmentalists" while some choose to use derogatory terms even such as tree hugger and greenies. Until the day comes when this is simply looked at as being "human",then I'm afraid we'll continue on the same path.

 

“Above and Beyond: NASA’s Journey to Tomorrow" just aired on the Science channel.Pretty compelling.Anyone else catch it? Looks like it's on again at midnight (eastern time) in case anyone wants to catch and or dvr it.

 

https://www.universal-sci.com/headli...in-development
One more reason not to delete..

 

I was wondering about all of the airliners burning tons of fuel. Supposedly there's so many planes flying now at all times it's incredible.
yes I know it's probably not gonna work to install EGR and DPF on Airbus and Boeing 767.
But consider those planes are WFO for hours.
Something else I see regularly is tug boats not even moving with idk how many diesel engines running... constantly.
Then you have all the other countries who don't have any regard whatsoever for emissions.
(I'm not saying we should abandon our efforts because of what I listed)