Ok can I hazard another angle on this to to see if both sides might find common ground in one area? Regardless climate change, is using oil and other fossils like we are now a good idea? I read that about 70% of oil is used a fuel, 30% for making most chemicals & paints, plastics, fertiliser (nudge nudge) and the list is very long. 10 to 15 calories of fossil fuel energy are used to create 1 calorie of food. As traders there must be some appreciation that oil/gas & coal are a VASTLY undervalued asset. The illusion that oil for example is cheap is a fantasy of epic proportions. As traders we might also consider say, how much of the US's defense budget is and has been spent on protecting oil supplies? How accurate is this statement from an article in 2010? I have not done the numbers but you get the gist: "According to estimates, we spend nearly half of our entire $685 billion defense budget protecting and ensuring the free flow of the approximately 730 million barrels of oil that we import annually from the Persian Gulf. And given the realities created by such terrifically large numbers, this means we spend an additional $469.00 on each of these units in order to bring them safely to market. So while we can all now happily fill up at a mere $2.70 per gallon, the actual price of that gas is much higher, once you figure in the cost of the defense dollars necessary to bring it all to market." We will be on the planet for a bit but we are using finite resources like there is no tomorrow, literally. Our population is growing exponentially and people keep looking at their shoes as if that is going to magically not screw us very soon. Technology might save our ass but.. A conservative in the true sense should do the math. Any conservative who does will realise that there are stupendously compelling reasons to put huge effort into going past burning fossils for heat. Even if there is no climate issue, it is an essential thing to do anyway.
That's why it is important for everyone to drive a Tesla- because when you plug it in it recharges with electricity that is generated by the electrical outlet somewhere there at the end of cord you plugged in. It does not use any oil, coal, nuclear or other undesireable sources. Astute viewers will see that I have told a joke. The future is in hydrogen. Note that I said future, which does not mean the end of next week. I am well aware that the energy required to produce exceeds the energy gained but I also see advances on that with increasing frequency.
Venus is hotter than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun. Why? Because Venus has an atmosphere with a high concentration of CO2. There is almost no controversy about the equation I gave above. The only debate is the value of λ. If you think that there is even the slightest possibility that this equation is wrong you can try this simple experiment.Take 2 plastic bottles and fill them 30% with water. Put an alkaseltzer tablet in one to generate carbon dioxide. Put the bottles equidistant to a heat source such as a light bulb. Measure the water temperature after an hour or so. Add a second alkaseltzer and see what difference it makes. The difference in temperature should be roughly as predicted by the equations above. If not either you are doing the experiment wrong or you are on your way to a Nobel prize...
Temporary changes in Earth's climate are caused by sunspot activity/solar flares and precession. The Earth is in a long term cooldown with temporary ups and downs much the way markets trend on long term charts but short term trade back and forth and have short term trends. Anyone who doesn't understand this is a fool of the first division and is part of a growing problem.
This would have to be classified as a posting by Fool number 2. --This progressive compares a planet with no atmosphere against a planet with an extremely dense atmosphere shrouded by sulfuric acid clouds. --The left and progressives have nothing-----I mean absolutely nothing.
From what I can tell, the only rational explanation left for the warming of the earth and therefore the rise in sea levels, is the burning of fossil fuels. It is not the amount of energy reaching the earth, it is the amount of energy being trapped by the earth. The earth has become the ultimate roach motel: Energy can come in. But it can't get out. This short article debunks most of the usual exogenous explanations given by deniers: "Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a cooling trend. However global temperatures continue to increase. If the sun's energy is decreasing while the Earth is warming, then the sun can't be the main control of the temperature. Figure 1 shows the trend in global temperature compared to changes in the amount of solar energy that hits the Earth. The sun's energy fluctuates on a cycle that's about 11 years long. The energy changes by about 0.1% on each cycle. If the Earth's temperature was controlled mainly by the sun, then it should have cooled between 2000 and 2008. Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASAGISS. AnnualTotal Solar Irradiance(thin light blue) with 11 year moving average ofTSI(thick dark blue).TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007.TSIfrom 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site. The solar fluctuations since 1870 have contributed a maximum of 0.1 °C to temperature changes. In recent times the biggest solar fluctuation happened around 1960. But the fastest global warming started in 1980. Figure 2 shows how much different factors have contributed recent warming. It compares the contributions from the sun, volcanoes, El Niño and greenhouse gases. The sun adds 0.02 to 0.1 °C. Volcanoes cool the Earth by 0.1-0.2 °C. Natural variability (like El Niño)heats or cools by about 0.1-0.2 °C.Greenhouse gases have heated the climate by over 0.8 °C. Figure 2 Global surface temperature anomalies from 1870 to 2010, and the natural (solar, volcanic, and internal) and anthropogenic factors that influence them. (a)Global surface temperature record (1870–2010) relative to the average global surface temperature for 1961–1990 (black line). A model of global surface temperature change (a: red line) produced using the sum of the impacts on temperature of natural (b, c, d) and anthropogenic factors (e). (b) Estimated temperature response to solar forcing. (c) Estimated temperature response to volcanic eruptions. (d) Estimated temperature variability due to internal variability, here related to theEl Niño-Southern Oscillation. (e) Estimated temperature response to anthropogenic forcing, consisting of a warming component from greenhouse gases, and a cooling component from most aerosols. (IPCC AR5, Chap 5) Some people try to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures by cherry picking the data. They only show data from periods when sun and climate data track together. They draw a false conclusion by ignoring the last few decades when the data shows the opposite result. Basic rebuttal written by Larry M, updated by Sarah https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Classic cherry picking of short term (data?) -within a planet life of 4.6 billion years so far. Fool number 3 has arrived.
The agw argument may be wrong because of data we have not seen and recorded may contradict the models. But your argument is falsified by data starring you in the face!