All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Terrel L. Shields]

No. Pete you are a pitiful little fellow who has in this whole thread used only ridicule and absolutely neither science nor logic..

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Pete, too bad you can't rebut with data and facts, just your opinion based upon politics. And, when challenged to explain why the computer models do not predict global temperatures or El Nino / La Nina events, you are strangely silent. You resort to ad hominem. That means you lose the argument.

 

[Meandering]

A study of solar radiation at 56 spots across Europe revealed the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth decreased between the 1950s and 1980s as sulphur emissions increased before falling with new air quality targets. They have been increasing since the mid 80s as developing nations burned more coal (illustrated)



Aerosols are produced naturally by events such as volcanic eruptions and these can help to cool the Earth, but the impact of man-made aerosols have been underestimated, according to the new research. They can directly reflect light into space and also increase the production of clouds, which also reflect light (illustrated)

'It seems this unintentional geoengineering has suppressed global warming during this period between the 1950s to the 2000s. 'When we stop doing this geoengineering and more sunlight comes again through to the Earth's surface we see that temperature has been rising much more rapidly as more sunlight comes through to the Earth's surface in addition to the underlying greenhouse effect.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3368886/NASA-study-Examination-Earth-s-recent-history-key-predicting-global-temperatures.html#ixzz3v3rd9jK8


Doesn't do much for the O's secret sunscreen weapon.

.

 

[Gobears81]

Pete, too bad you can't rebut with data and facts, just your opinion based upon politics. And, when challenged to explain why the computer models do not predict global temperatures or El Nino / La Nina events, you are strangely silent. You resort to ad hominem. That means you lose the argument.

I've admittedly skipped 98% of this thread (and reading through 181-pages is a lot of work), and don't know exactly what the context of the politics statement was from. But, I actually see politics from the other side of the coin-there are a lot of republicans out there that I won't even consider voting for because of their views on environmental policy and climate change. It's very unfortunate because I don't really identify with the democratic party either but consider environmental policy pretty high on my list of priorities. When the two-party system is eliminated, hopefully politicians will feel comfortable to stand up for what they believe in, rather than conforming to the rigid, backwards expectations of the party which they identify with. There are unfortunately a lot of the public out there that just allow their views to conform directly to their identifying party as well. But maybe there are enough free thinkers that will allow these expectations to be torn down.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Fear of being sued over climate change grips San Diego

Five years of internal debate and external pressures yield a groundbreaking document for San Diego

• the city became the largest in the country to call for obtaining electricity entirely from renewable energy by 2035
• climate plan also requires persuading large numbers of commuters to get out of their cars
• linchpin of this climate plan is that it’s legally binding

If the city can’t meet its lofty objectives, which includes a long list of intermediate milestones along the way, environmental nonprofits, public interest attorneys and even the state attorney general could file lawsuits to force expedited compliance, including spending more money.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/dec/21/climate-action-plan-litigation-ceqa-san-diego/

Gee, wonder what the economic impact is going to be?

 

[Ida S. Romo]

Here you go PP ... Spin this ..








Cardboard Game Spinner

*

 

[Meandering]

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. Growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led to sweeping amendments in 1972. As amended in 1972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Subsequent amendments modified some of the earlier CWA provisions. Revisions in 1981 streamlined the municipal construction grants process, improving the capabilities of treatment plants built under the program. Changes in 1987 phased out the construction grants program, replacing it with the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, more commonly known as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This new funding strategy addressed water quality needs by building on EPA-state partnerships.
http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act

Report: Ohio River most polluted body of water in U.S. for 7th year in row
Greater Cincinnati Water Works have special carbon filtration system in place to remove toxic chemicals

According to the Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission, most recent Toxic Release Inventory report for the Ohio River, 23 million pounds of chemicals were dumped into the Ohio river by industries and businesses in 2013. 73 percent of the total release of chemicals into the Ohio River are from one facility, which is downriver in Rockport, IN, AK Steel Corp. The 23 million pounds of toxic chemicals is down from the high point of 33 million pounds in 2006. More than 90 percent of the pollutants are nitrate compounds, commonly found in pesticides.
http://www.wlwt.com/news/report-ohi...y-of-water-in-us-for-7th-year-in-row/31456864

After having legislation for more than 60 years,

They are still dumping into rivers.

Meanwhile, poor people don't have access to clean drinking water, people in drought ridden areas don't have access to clean drinking water, none of this has anything to do with climate change.

Two sets of rules.

But keep believing anyone who can do anything about it gives a rats backside if it doesn't line their pockets.



.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

No. Pete you are a pitiful little fellow who has in this whole thread used only ridicule and absolutely neither science nor logic..

And you sir are a hypocrite pandering to your fellow would-be-debunkers (there, changed the term for you to save you from exercising further hypocrisy). Clearly you read only my posts, having missed some of the inconsistency, crudity, and venom spewed by others. You are amusing!

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

You are amusing!

You've yet to say a single word not meant to criticize people who apparently at least read and simply not spout the party line of venom - The inconsistency of posted remarks is consistent with the notion that this is a far more complex issue than the trite assurances of the elite that they know with certainty what "climate change" really is. Go look at the history of the Pleistocene -

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Pete, too bad you can't rebut with data and facts, just your opinion based upon politics. And, when challenged to explain why the computer models do not predict global temperatures or El Nino / La Nina events, you are strangely silent. You resort to ad hominem. That means you lose the argument.

Don't want to point out the obvious density of your reasoning. The point you make in one post is that the climate models are suspect because they fail to account for the total output of methane into the atmosphere. Yes, they would be suspect insofar as they underestimate the impact given the reality of methane in the Arctic. You try to use that contradiction to further your point when in fact it serves the opposite purpose.

Then you expound upon the El Nino/La Nina events to support your attempt to debunk rising temperatures when in fact it does quite the opposite. The point made is that the La Nina event has resulted in the oceans mitigating the rising temperatures to a degree but warning that eventually that will end and the rise in temperatures will spike. Once again, counter to your attempt to debunk.

Ah inconsistency is thy name Duncan!