Originally posted by humyLets see what my link says shall we?
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-carbon-dioxide-year.html
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-carbon-dioxide-year.html
"....The Obama Administration's hotly debated plan to reduce heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the nation's power plants will save about 3,500 lives a year by cutting back on other types of pollution as well, a new independent study concludes.
A study from Harvard and Syracuse University calculates the decline in heart attacks and lung disease when soot and smog are reduced—an anticipated byproduct of the president's proposed power plant rule, which aims to fight global warming by limiting carbon dioxide emissions.
Past studies have found that between 20,000 and 30,000 Americans die each year because of health problems from power plant air pollution, study authors and outside experts say.
..."
And this is true EVEN ignoring/without the global warming from CO2 and EVEN ignoring the additional thousands of lives saved annually if other countries also cut down on their fossil fuel burning. And these lives saved is just from cutting down on fossil fuel burning, not eliminating fossil fuel burning!
This sounds like an additional very good reason to go all-renewable globally to me even if one were to moronically dismiss/ignore the scientific fact of man made global warming!
And then, of course, there is also the additional economic benefit of eliminating oil dependence and thus the risky economic reliance on oil imports as well as eliminating the longer term problem of what to do when the oil runs out. You will have to be a complete moron to not see we will eventually HAVE TO go all renewable! It is just a question of when.
I cannot understand some people's motivation against renewables.
Originally posted by sonhouseNot true. I proved climate models are unreliable and that is a fact. It is you that cannot get over your bias.
You know, you use phrases like 'I have proved' and such but YOU have proved nothing. Only parroting those people who agree with your built in bias.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/nasa_arctic_ice.png
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou use different definition of the verb 'to prove'.
Not true. I proved climate models are unreliable and that is a fact. It is you that cannot get over your bias.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/nasa_arctic_ice.png
If I can find anyone who agrees with me, and quote him, then I have proven my point. Correct? I don't think so. I can surely refer to some other to confirm this.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI didn't think it was necessary to post this again. I must have posted it a half dozen times, but here you go.
You use different definition of the verb 'to prove'.
If I can find anyone who agrees with me, and quote him, then I have proven my point. Correct? I don't think so. I can surely refer to some other to confirm this.
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
Originally posted by Metal BrainAnd now you didn't read my posting. Again. Read it again and notice that I wrote nothing about the climate.
I didn't think it was necessary to post this again. I must have posted it a half dozen times, but here you go.
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
Do you want me to prove that...? 🙂
for those of us here with a genuine interest of what is going on in the real world, lets get much more back-on-topic:
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-global-greenhouse-gas-monthly.html
"...Global carbon dioxide levels reach new monthly record (Update)
In another ominous sign of human-caused climate change, US government scientists said Wednesday that global carbon dioxide concentrations have reached a new monthly record of 400 parts per million.
...
..."For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere, the monthly global average concentration of this greenhouse gas surpassed 400 parts per million in March 2015," said the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Scientists announced that C02 had passed the 400 ppm level for the first time in the Arctic in 2012, and at Mauna Loa in Hawaii in 2013.
"It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally," said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network.
"Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone."
Tans said C02 has risen more than 120 parts per million since pre-industrial times.
"Half of that rise has occurred since 1980," he said.
...
"NOAA data show that the average growth rate of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere from 2012 to 2014 was 2.25 ppm per year, the highest ever recorded over three consecutive years," the agency said.
...
NOAA collects its data on global carbon dioxide concentration on air samples taken from 40 sites around the world, including some remote islands.
"We choose to sample at these sites because the atmosphere itself serves to average out gas concentrations that are being affected by human and natural forces. At these remote sites we get a better global average," said Ed Dlugokencky, the NOAA scientist who manages the global network.
..."
Originally posted by humy"In another ominous sign of human-caused climate change, US government scientists said Wednesday that global carbon dioxide concentrations have reached a new monthly record of 400 parts per million."
for those of us here with a genuine interest of what is going on in the real world, lets get much more back-on-topic:
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-global-greenhouse-gas-monthly.html
"...Global carbon dioxide levels reach new monthly record (Update)
In another ominous sign of human-caused climate change, US government scientists said Wednesday that glob ...[text shortened]... r global average," said Ed Dlugokencky, the NOAA scientist who manages the global network.
..."
Ominous? How can you call it ominous? I already showed you that CO2 is at about the same levels as the Pliocene. It isn't anywhere close to being as warm as during the Pliocene which shows CO2 is not the primary driver of climate change.
CO2 can clearly increase without causing much warming. Your alarmist views are deeply flawed, yet you cling to it like a religion.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2922553/Global-warming-believers-like-hysterical-cult-MIT-scientist-compares-climate-alarmists-religious-fanatics.html
You are like a religious fanatic that cannot let go of your belief that the world is going to end. Nothing will change your mind even when prediction after prediction fails. It is like you rationalize it and say "it didn't happen, but it will. You just wait."
We are all waiting for your silly predictions to come true, yet nothing.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/24/un-ipcc-chief-admits-global-warming-is-religious-issue-it-is-my-religion-and-my-dharma/
I'll bet you are like Harrison Ford. You talk about it and do nothing to reduce your own carbon footprint. Al Gore is like that too. He is just a hypocrite.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/12/actor-harrison-fords-green-religion-i-needed-something-outside-of-myself-to-believe-in-i-found-in-nature-a-kind-of-god/
Originally posted by Metal BrainI don't have to prove it - you did it all by your self.
Prove what?
You proved to all of us that you don't read the postings you're replying.
Or perhaps you have a short memory, not remembering what you read a few seconds ago.
Hint: It is about your strange definition of 'to prove'.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI never wrote "to prove" so I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps it is you that has a short memory.
I don't have to prove it - you did it all by your self.
You proved to all of us that you don't read the postings you're replying.
Or perhaps you have a short memory, not remembering what you read a few seconds ago.
Hint: It is about your strange definition of 'to prove'.