Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 37 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15052586
BeesKnee5 wrote:
There will always be space for renewable energy and replacing fossil fuels. Biofuel is far more than fiddling at the edges. Digesters that convert plant and food waste into methane for fuel instead of just leaving it to rot anyway must be part of the mix.



Hve you looked at emissions that happen while you are making this particular biofuel? Not something they talk about much..
#15052589
late wrote:
Hve you looked at emissions that happen while you are making this particular biofuel? Not something they talk about much..


Have you looked at the emissions from leaving waste to rot?

Better to capture and use it. That's really the point here, we need to remove the fossil fuel carbon that's been added and harness the natural cycle where our emissions are inevitable.

As animals we produce waste, our farming creates waste. Harnessing the gases from the breakdown of that waste and using what's left as fertiliser is a sensible approach.
#15052612
Officials in the Florida Keys announced what many coastal governments nationwide have long feared, but few have been willing to admit: As seas rise and flooding gets worse, not everyone can be saved.
The results released Wednesday focus on a single three-mile stretch of road at the southern tip of Sugarloaf Key, a small island 15 miles up Highway 1 from Key West. To keep those three miles of road dry year-round in 2025 would require raising it by 1.3 feet, at a cost of $75 million, or $25 million per mile. Keeping the road dry in 2045 would mean elevating it 2.2 feet, at a cost of $128 million. To protect against expected flooding levels in 2060, the cost would jump to $181 million. And all that to protect about two dozen homes.

I don't understand why they can't just sell their properties to climate change denialists. If you believe climate change isn't happening, you could get a good deal on all of this property. Hear that Hindsite ….. we can get you a real good deal on some spectacular oceanfront property ….. :lol:

Image
Georgia Siegel ^ on the beach near her home on the key. “It’s a problem that’s bigger than me,” she said.

Don't worry Georgia …… it's all fake news..... Don The Con told us and he is very trustworthy :lol: .
#15052631
jimjam wrote:I don't understand why they can't just sell their properties to climate change denialists. If you believe climate change isn't happening, you could get a good deal on all of this property. Hear that Hindsite ….. we can get you a real good deal on some spectacular oceanfront property ….. :lol:

Do you remember all the "nuclear winter" scares back in the Reagan era? Maybe we should have elected Hillary Clinton and started a nuclear war to stop climate change.
#15052634
blackjack21 wrote:Do you remember all the "nuclear winter" scares back in the Reagan era? Maybe we should have elected Hillary Clinton and started a nuclear war to stop climate change.

Dumb. Are you drinking? You are younger than I sonny. I want you to think of me when the shit hits the fan. I'm working hard here to keep this from being a one line post. Hey, I just had a great idea. While Obese Donald's son in law Jar something is working at his new job as Mexican Wall custodian …… i'm sure getting the Mexicans to pay for it would be kid stuff after his peace plan brought peace to the Middle East :lol: Oh God! this is like watching the 3 Stooges In The White House.
#15052638
jimjam wrote:Dumb. Are you drinking? You are younger than I sonny. I want you to think of me when the shit hits the fan.

No. I rarely drink anymore. I just find all the doom and gloom humorous at this point. Looking back on life, it seems the media has done nothing but try to scare the shit out of people as long as I can remember. It doesn't matter. Last week we were being warned about a drought, and now we're being warned about flooding. "The Storm! It destroyed this house! Will yours be next? Stay tuned after these messages!" I think adopting a certain insouciance is the appropriate response to modern media. I find it hilarious that even impeachment isn't enough to get people to watch the idiot box. Don't worry. The planet is going to be just fine. You and I will die long before the planet does.
#15052845
Over decades the fossil fuel industry has hijacked our political system, and we have failed to elect enough leaders who are not beholden to the industry’s interests. The Center for Responsive Politics has documented that the oil and gas industry alone has spent some $218 million on lobbying in 2018 and 2019. In addition, oil and gas interests have contributed about $27 million to Senate and House candidates and party committees in the 2020 election cycle. Fossil fuel interests are subverting our democracy. Follow the money to the truth.

In just the past year, the United States has experienced deadly wildfires, devastating flooding and the hottest month ever recorded, all driven, at least in part, by climate change. What is President Trump’s response? He’s pulling the United States out of the Paris agreement and rolling back 85 environmental safeguards, including important and consequential climate initiatives. This should not be surprising; he once called climate change a “hoax.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is also blocking efforts to deal with the climate crisis.
#15052987
jimjam wrote:Over decades the fossil fuel industry has hijacked our political system, and we have failed to elect enough leaders who are not beholden to the industry’s interests. The Center for Responsive Politics has documented that the oil and gas industry alone has spent some $218 million on lobbying in 2018 and 2019. In addition, oil and gas interests have contributed about $27 million to Senate and House candidates and party committees in the 2020 election cycle. Fossil fuel interests are subverting our democracy. Follow the money to the truth.

In just the past year, the United States has experienced deadly wildfires, devastating flooding and the hottest month ever recorded, all driven, at least in part, by climate change. What is President Trump’s response? He’s pulling the United States out of the Paris agreement and rolling back 85 environmental safeguards, including important and consequential climate initiatives. This should not be surprising; he once called climate change a “hoax.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is also blocking efforts to deal with the climate crisis.

Trump’s tweet said, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." However, he later said it was a joke. You liberals can't take a joke.
#15053055
Hindsite wrote:Trump’s tweet said, "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." However, he later said it was a joke. You liberals can't take a joke.


WTF does this have to do with a quarter billion spent by the fossil fuel industry to purchase politicians or the hottest month ever recorded? I have long suspected but now firmly believe that you are Obese Donald himself trolling POFO :lol: . That being established, I will keep quiet if you award me a wall building contract for a hundred miles of wall on the Southern border for 5 billion or so that will cost me one billion. I'll even give you lot's of invoices that you can use to bill Mexico and get them to pay 10 billion back to one of your phony front operations ;)
#15053075
Oxygen in the oceans is being lost at an unprecedented rate, with “dead zones” proliferating and hundreds more areas showing oxygen dangerously depleted, as a result of the climate emergency and intensive farming, experts have warned. The world’s oceans are already being overfished, and assailed by a rising tide of plastic waste, as well as other pollutants. Seas are about 26% more acidic than in pre-industrial times because of absorbing the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with damaging impacts on shellfish in particular.

Low oxygen levels are also associated with global heating, because the warmer water holds less oxygen and the heating causes stratification, so there is less of the vital mixing of oxygen-rich and oxygen-poor layers. Oceans are expected to lose about 3-4% of their oxygen by the end of this century, but the impact will be much greater in the levels closest to the surface, where many species are concentrated, and in the mid to high latitudes.
#15053116
This study went back to see how 17 of the earliest climate models were at predicting the future, the future when they were published.
This study found that the higher predictions than the amount of actual temp. rise that has been measured since is about 95% the result of the original authors over estimating the amount of future greenhouse gases would be emitted. The model was not the problem, the problem was in the prediction of human behavior, of economic behavior. If the correct amount of greenhouse gases is entered as data and then the models {17 models} are run, then 14 of the models give us almost exactly the amount of warming as we have measured.

For those who are kind of dense, what this means is that for 30 years those early models conform to the actual temps measured. This increases our confidence that the models do, in fact, correctly predict what warming we will see in *our* future if we can correctly predict the amount of greenhouse gases that will be emitted.

At a *minimum*, this means that if we just stopped emitting them after next year, then those early models would correctly predict how much warming we wold see over the next 100 years. They do predict that temps would rise at least 1 deg. C and maybe 2 C. Many people and scientists are very worried that a 1-2 deg. C temp rise would trigger one of the known tipping points, and this would raise temps by a few more degrees C. When a tipping point will be triggered is very much unknown and probably impossible to predict before it happens. And it is certain that it can't be *proven* when a tipping point *will* be triggered before it happens.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... l-warming/

The edits were for just 3 typos.
________________ ________________________________ __________________

I saw this article on another site. Below I post a reply I liked from that site's resulting thread.
Sorry, I'm afraid to post a link to it on this site because I don't know the rules on such things. Nor do I know how to format it here correctly. The last quote runs til the bottom of this reply.

[quote="Samuel Vines"]
"Sir, a question!
So if climate models have changed a lot, and the very first ones are giving the values we observe now, and so do the ones that have changed a lot, that leaves us where?"
[/q]

[quote="Benkyo"]
"Just because a model becomes more accurate, that doesn't necessarily change the output."
[/q]

[quote="Samuel Vines"]
"I am well aware of that. Or, more precisely, that is it indeed, observably; [that it] didn't change the output is exactly what triggered my 'so where does that leave us' comment.

Take any subject. Usually, improving early and rough models leads to more accuracy (and finer detail). In this case it is leading to finer detail only, it was accurate to begin with. That is huge. It is far more than just a counter to people who state that Hansen 1988 was 50% off.

So you went back and found the disused model equally accurate.

Surely if you are a scientist, and on the one hand you state that 'climate models have changed a lot' and on the other hand you go back to the old ones and you find they provide the same observable output, that ought to trigger immediate follow-up questions in your mind.

If anything, I totally wouldn't have blamed early models to be inaccurate to a significant degree. Early models usually are and they become more accurate after feeding in related processes which were overlooked. Insight improves accuracy.

But we are not getting different results by improving the models. Just more detail.

That's huge.

The models are simplified versions of utterly complex systems based on known chemistry/energy principles. They have two elements, looking back and looking forwards. They must be able to replicate the past if known amounts of driver compositions are fed into it. And they have predictive qualities which rely on assumptions about future changes in the composition of drivers. A reliable model, 50 years from now, a 100 years from now, being fed (by then) known data, ought to replicate the observed reality.

It doesn't surprise me that the early rough models provide the same output as the more sophisticated ones. Chemistry principles have not changed and the main drivers were already identified. That was what Hansen 1988 was modelling. And the effects of the Montreal protocol has been provided as a large part of Hansen 1988's overestimate long before this study above. Something tells me that Hansen himself did revisit his study a decade ago and concluded this very thing, but maybe my memory is no longer what it was.

The new model's sophistication, based on vastly increased insight in the complexity of the system is offering local detail that was impossible to extract from the rough early models. That is great for projecting locally, and studying local questions.

But that we are not 'improving' the accuracy of the core projection significantly at all is also suggesting that we might well be fiddling at the margins, as we simply are not discovering any process which is altering the base projection despite working with models which process insight a lot more insight in related processes.

So we now have a model which projects forcings that have been proven accurate for 3 decades. That's scientifically significant enough to take the model's further projections very seriously. No more handwaving.

Also, we are not discovering model mitigation at all. Ouch. Nor, apparently, unforeseen acceleration. Yay!

That's my core takeaway.

So, if the core drivers really are 'it' and Hansen 1988 gave us already all we needed to know, and his predictive model has now been right for decades, where does that leave us?

It leaves us, as pointed out by the poster above, with a simple model that looks to be remarkable accurate in flagging up the horrors on the road ahead, and hasn't be shown to be inaccurate yet. It has been accurate for decades, seemingly. Hence, this model leaves us without excuses for an obligation to act, knowing the scale of the disaster in our imminent future which this model predicts if current behaviour remains on the course it is. Including the points of no (quick) return.

Still, turning to the newer detailed models, they might provide answers on how to manipulate the outcome locally for maximum effect, although their local accuracy still has to be proven over time. They should suggest manipulation which can be tailored locally, all helping to accomplish the overall goals.

It also suggests we shouldn't be opening new layers of fossil fuels in a hurry, not until we have ways to mitigate those numbers being released into the system. Chuck in those numbers and nothing we are doing in the meantime will be enough to match our Paris' (already weak) ambitions. Given what we know, allowing companies to extract them is a crime against future generations. Nothing less.

Wir haben es gewusst."[/q]
#15053181
late wrote:I do believe I hit a nerve.

Ha, ha :lol:

BeesKnee5 wrote:No

You guys have a poor sense of humor.

BeesKnee5 wrote:Why would I think it would be Al Gore?

Al Gore is the current high priest of the global warming/climate change hoax.

HOW AL GORE BUILT THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD
OCTOBER 19, 2018
By Jay Lehr, Tom Harris

And changed the alarmism from global cooling to global warming, and now climate change.

Although his science is often seriously wrong, no one can deny that Al Gore has a flare for the dramatic. Speaking about climate change in an October 12 PBS interview, the former vice-president proclaimed, “We have a global emergency.” Referring to the most recent UN climate report, Gore claimed it showed that current global warming “could actually extend to an existential threat to human civilization on this planet as we know it.”

Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?

Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.

This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.

TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling.

Global cooling gained considerable traction with the general public. But then, instead of cooling as long predicted by manmade climate change advocates, the planet started warming again. Something had to be done to rescue the climate change agenda from utter disaster. Enter Al Gore.

Gore advanced to Vice President under President Bill Clinton, where he was able to enact policies and direct funding to ensure that the climate change agenda became a top priority of the United States Government. Gore’s mission was boosted when Clinton gave him authority over the newly created President’s Council on Sustainable Development.

Considering that the Council was tasked with advising the President “on matters involving sustainable development,” and alternative points of view on the science of climate change were effectively excluded, it was a foregone conclusion that the Clinton administration would go in the direction Gore wanted. Indeed, in their cover letter to the President accompanying their 1999 report, Advancing Prosperity, Opportunity and a Healthy Environment for the 21st Century, the Council stated: “Our report presents consensus recommendations on how America can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take other steps to protect the climate.”

An example of his power was shown when physicist Dr. William Happer, then Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, testified before Congress in 1993 that scientific data did not support the hypothesis of manmade global warming. Gore saw to it that Happer was immediately fired. Fifteen years later, Happer quipped, “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly.”

Al Gore was also able to leverage his high visibility, his movie awards, his Nobel Prize, and his involvement in various carbon trading and other schemes into a personal fortune. When he ended his tenure as Vice President in 2001, his net worth was $2 million. By 2013, it exceeded $300 million.

Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, provided a series of graphic images showing the apocalyptic consequences that some had predicted if fossil fuels were allowed to continue warming the planet. Images included melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.

This compelling propaganda played a major role in frightening an entire generation about the future, causing young people and many parents to feel guilty about the role that they and their country were supposedly having in destroying our beautiful planet.

Since then, Americans have been told constantly that they should feel irresponsible if they drive cars or use fossil fuel energy to heat their homes or power their businesses. A rapid, massive conversion away from coal, oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources such and wind and solar, we are told, is the only hope for saving the planet.

Now children are increasingly depressed about their future, thanks to the constant barrage of global warming propaganda that they receive at school. Indeed, they have become so brainwashed and cowed by their peers that they no longer dare to question any statement made about catastrophic climate change.

Yet, essentially everything in Gore's climate change agenda is either wrong or highly misrepresented.

Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/ ... ming-fraud
#15053191
Hindsite wrote:
melting glaciers, dying polar bears, spreading diseases, coastal cities inundated by massive floods, cities wiped out by hurricanes and tornadoes, and food supplies exterminated by droughts.





Now that he is President Donald Trump’s Senior Scientist for the National Security Council, Dr. Happer needs to show there is no “scientific consensus” on these issues, rekindle informed debate on climate and energy issues, and help bring hope, common sense and real science back into the discourse – to help end the dangerous mythology of dangerous manmade global warming.



Glaciers are melting, cities are flooding, and the hotter, drier climate is causing problems.

You know, in the real world?

Dr Happer can't do that. That scientific community reached consensus about 20 years ago, and subsequent work has only reinforced that consensus.

But he will tell you the lies you love.
#15053231
Here I quote a few sentences from the post in the thread that I pasted above.

"So we now have a model which projects forcings that have been proven accurate for 3 decades. That's scientifically significant enough to take the model's further projections very seriously. No more handwaving.

Also, we are not discovering model mitigation at all. Ouch. Nor, apparently, unforeseen acceleration. Yay!"


I have underlined & bolded the part that I don't think has been proven yet. I have little idea what is included in the models being tested. However, the article did say that the {for example} methane in the air each year was being entered as data. If the model predicted an increase in methane and additional methane was being entered as data then I don't think the model would have conformed to the current warming seen so far. Instead it would be somewhat higher. The fact that the warming isn't somewhat higher tells me that the model did not predict more methane being emitted into the air due to the temp. change as calculated.
. . So, I think that we may have crossed the methane tipping point. This report is not evidence that we haven't.

What this report is, is proof that all the handwaving to poo poo the scientists warnings were and are just BS. The early models do predict almost exactly the amount of warming that we have seen from 1989 to 2019 {=30 years). This is stroug evidence that the models are correct in their predictions of how much warming we will see in the next 10 - 20 years, assuming that no tipping point have been reached so far or in those 20 years.

So far no ACC denier has argued with the conclusions of the report or my follow up conclusions. If they don't say anything here at all then they loose the argument in the minds of the intelligent lurkers. And, if they say something but it is meaningless then they should lose the argument in the minds of the intelligent lurkers. They can only win the argument, at this point, if they can say something meaningful. But, I doubt there is any way to argue against the 'proofs' presented in the article, the reply I copied & posted, and my own reply. They seem pretty air tight to me.
  • 1
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 50

I think I have moral responsibility to expose ski[…]

The Two Forms of Socialism

Okay, DM, I know I'm slipping on the videos-count […]

PoFo seems very abundant of lefttard socialist to[…]

Welcome :)