"Global Warming" Oscillations?

[BeyondET]

5 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

There are none so foolish as those who presume to know what others do or do not know.

Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.  source

I presume that English is not your primary language, because you aren't even close to what I posted.  I will post more slowly for you.

What WILL throw the world into turmoil is the sudden disappearance of millions of people-- This is known as the Rapture, by the way.

which could literally happen any day. -- That means that all the prophesies have been fulfilled.  

In the following seven years,-- Following means afterward; after the Rapture, which could happen at any time or many years from now.

two thirds of the earth's population will die.  That's about 5.4 billion people.-- That's simple mathematics based on the current population and the percentage of people killed during the seven years of the tribulation.  See the Revelation for details.

Once more, I will post it more slowly for you.

If you're hanging with a bad crowd-- Note the word "if" at the beginning of this sentence.  Also, the "you" is collective, meaning anyone, not you in particular.

and get saved they won't want you around any more.-- That is quite simply a fact.  Jesus told us it would happen and it does.  People who are living a life of sin like to be around others living the same way.  Likewise, with the saved.

This is a quote from the source you provided below.

Big oil and natural gas companies are no different. The only thing that changes are the mask. But like the author said there is no denying fossil fuel burning is effecting the atmosphere.

 

"(This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming.

But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t anyone in the media ever mention this?)"

Edited March 15 by BeyondET

[RV_Wizard]

5 hours ago, BeyondET said:

You know the fumes from a car are extremely toxic, who cares about driving an electric car. At least you won't be spewing out gases while you're waiting on something you may never see in your lifetime among the living.

Catalytic converters change carbon monoxide, a gas released in the combustion process into carbon dioxide which trees need to live.  Carbon monoxide is also produced when you have a bonfire and much more so when you have a forest fire.  Yet, we don't hear people calling to clean up the old grove forests to prevent massive fires.  That wouldn't enrich the climate criminals.

So your idea is that we strip mine lithium from Afghanistan in mines owned by the Chinese to produce batteries that are environmental disasters that are recharged by burning coal and are stressing the electrical grid.  BRILLIANT!!  Not only have you drastically limited your range of motion and introduced a vehicle that barely performs in cold weather, you're polluting the earth in the name of environmentalism.

Want a better solution?  Hydrogen power using electrolysis to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water.  Zero emissions, lots of energy, no taxation of the power grid, but no money to out Chinese owned politicians.

Want to stay electric?  Use a 3 cylinder diesel engine to power a generator and feed power to electric motors at the wheels; like a train does.  No need for expensive batteries that enrich our enemies and cause cars to catch fire.  Diesel fuel is 190% as efficient as gasoline and has a much higher flash point.

The hypocrisy is that there is no desire to make a more efficient vehicle for the working man.  The desire is to pad the pockets of the elite and to continue enriching our enemies so they can fund the election campaigns of the politicians they purchase.

 

[FJK]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You were misled about that.   The warmer Earth we are seeing now, was predicted by most climatologists in the 1970s.

I recall the prediction of a new ice age back in those days being at the forefront, those were the days when we read books like Silent Spring and called those concerned with the environment ecologists and started replacing worship of God with worship of Gaia.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

I recall the prediction of a new ice age back in those days being at the forefront

Nope.   That story got started when a few reporters noticed a brief period of cold years and assumed it was climate, writing stories in magazines about the "coming ice age."  Even then, most climatologists knew better.

Climate science as we know it today did not exist in the 1960s and 1970s. The integrated enterprise embodied in the Nobel Prizewinning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change existed then as separate threads of research pursued by isolated groups of scientists. Atmospheric chemists and modelers grappled with the measurement of changes in carbon dioxide and atmospheric gases, and the changes in climate that might result. Meanwhile, geologists and paleoclimate researchers tried to understand when Earth slipped into and out of ice ages, and why. An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

https://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/webprogram/Paper131047.html

Edited March 15 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, FJK said:

and started replacing worship of God with worship of Gaia.

You can't get to God by data.   And you can't do science by faith.   Different things.   Those who try to replace science with religion will be forever deluded.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Catalytic converters change carbon monoxide, a gas released in the combustion process into carbon dioxide which trees need to live. 

The problem isn't carbon dioxide, it's how much carbon dioxide.   Turns out, elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the air reduce the nutrition of many crops humans depend on to live.

American Journal of Plant Sciences > Vol.9 No.7, June 2018

Effect of Elevated Air Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Levels on Dry Season Irrigated Rice Productivity in Bangladesh

Abstract

Agricultural productivity is affected by air temperature and CO₂ concentration. The relationships among grain yields of dry season irrigated rice (Boro) varieties (BRRI dhan28, BRRI dhan29 and BRRI dhan58) with increased temperatures and CO₂ concentrations were investigated for futuristic crop management in six regions of Bangladesh using CERES-Rice model (DSSATv4.6). Maximum and minimum temperature increase rates considered were 0°C, +1°C, +2°C, +3°C and +4°C and CO₂ concentrations were ambient (380), 421, 538, 670 and 936 ppm. At ambient temperature and CO₂ concentration, attainable grain yields varied from 6506 to 8076 kg·ha^-1 depending on rice varieties. In general, grain yield reduction would be the highest (13% - 23%) if temperature rises by 4°C and growth duration reduction would be 23 - 33 days. Grain yield reductions with 1°C, 2°C and 3°C rise in temperature are likely to be compensated by increased CO₂ levels of 421, 538 and 670 ppm, respectively. In future, the highest reduction in grain yield and growth duration would be in cooler region and the least in warmer saline region of the country. Appropriate adaptive techniques like shifting in planting dates, water and nitrogen fertilizer management would be needed to overcome climate change impacts on rice production.

It's not just rice.    Many other crops are adversely affected.

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=63280

Interactions between plant nutrients, water and carbon dioxide as factors limiting crop yields

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rstb.1997.0077

There's a race on now, it find ways to evolve plants better adapted to rising CO2 levels, but we're losing at the moment.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Yet, we don't hear people calling to clean up the old grove forests to prevent massive fires.  That wouldn't enrich the climate criminals.

Why don't you just ban Jewish Space Lasers?   Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks that they are why we're having forest fires.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Want a better solution?  Hydrogen power using electrolysis to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water.  Zero emissions, lots of energy, no taxation of the power grid, but no money to out Chinese owned politicians.

That's a growing technology now.   The big concern was storage safety for a highly explosive gas.  Lots of new technology being developed to address that issue.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-storage

It can be produced with renewable electrical power, won't adversely affect the atmosphere, and could even power electrical plants to keep the power grid working.   (and incidentally make EVs more green).

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/hydrogen/production-of-hydrogen.php

[Still Alive]

On 3/12/2024 at 10:31 PM, RV_Wizard said:

They predicted the population bomb, also, a global famine by 1975, a new ice age before the 21st century begins, oceans dead by 1974, acid rain depleting the supply of fish, sea levels covering countries by 2008, no more snow anywhere by 2000, the polar ice cap completely melting by 2018 and many other spectacular events that never happened.  In fact, every two years there's a new eco-threat that's going to kill us unless we sacrifice more of our freedoms.

Yep. Meanwhile, in central Kentucky, where I live, we're having unseasonably warm weather and us deniers are seriously enjoying it. I got a ton of work done on my property. 

But the scaredy cats that believe everything the global warming utterly unqualified mouthpieces tell them, e.g. Greta and Bill Nye, are living in terrible fear. But nothing you say to them can help. I'm 70. I've lived through all sorts of extra cold and extra warm periods even in that short time span. 

All that said, I'd love to see the CO2 roughly double. Imagine wine country in Siberia and millions of acres of citrus in what was the sahara desert! 

How about luxury hotels in Antarctica? A guy can dream.

[FJK]

35 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You can't get to God by data.   And you can't do science by faith.   Different things.   Those who try to replace science with religion will be forever deluded.

 

Likewise those who try to replace religion with science.

[The Barbarian]

You can't get to God by data.   And you can't do science by faith.   Different things.   Those who try to replace science with religion will be forever deluded.

23 minutes ago, FJK said:

Likewise those who try to replace religion with science.

Yep.  

[The Barbarian]

30 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

All that said, I'd love to see the CO2 roughly double. Imagine wine country in Siberia and millions of acres of citrus in what was the sahara desert! 

There will be winners and losers.  Canada, Northern Africa, and Siberia will probably be more livable.   The American West and the Gulf coast will be more challenging, with worse droughts and stronger storms.

I don't see that as a good thing.   But then, I live in America.