Global Warming

[tehmackdaddy]

"Overpopulation is America's biggest environmental threat"

Americans planted trees, organized park clean-ups and hosted community events to promote conservation and sustainability for Earth Day 2019.

All those activities are important. But they don't address one of America's biggest environmental challenges — rapid population growth. Since the first Earth Day in 1970, the U.S. population has increased from 205 million to 327 million. It'll surge to 404 million by 2060, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Would adding another 77 million people to the United States cause great harm to the environment? It’s a question we need to ask ourselves.

The answer to that question is obvious if one considers the effects of U.S. population growth. We'd have to develop millions of acres of open space to house and feed all these new people.

It's not too late to put America on a more sustainable path, but that would mean having an honest discussion about what’s driving U.S. population growth. Almost 90 percent of population growth is fueled by immigration, according to Pew Research. Humanely scaling back future levels of immigration would help America pursue a sustainable future.

Earth Day's founder, the late Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wisconsin), recognized the need to address immigration levels.

"It's phony to say 'I'm for the environment but not for limiting immigration,' " he noted. "It's just a fact that we can't take all the people who want to come here."

He's right. Nearly 160 million people around the world want to move to the United States. There's no feasible way to accept them all. Which means Americans need to make hard choices about who we let in and, most importantly, how many.

Right now, we're refusing to make those choices. Our immigration system is running on autopilot due to "chain-migration" policies, which allow recent immigrants to sponsor their extended family members for green cards. Most of the 1 million legal immigrants who arrive in America each year come through chain migration.

Another 1 million illegal immigrants will slip through our porous southern border this year.

These levels of immigration are historically high. For much of the 20th century, America took in just 250,000 or so foreigners each year. It wasn't until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that immigration levels started to surge.

The ensuing population growth has already damaged the environment. Developers have paved 40 million acres of forests and fields — an area the size of New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey combined — since the early 1980s to make way for more housing, roads and other structures.

Florida is all too familiar with immigration-fueled urban sprawl. It adds 900 new people to its population each day, and more than half of that total are immigrants. That's equivalent to adding the population of Orlando to the state every year. If this trend continues, more than 5 million acres of farms, forests and open space in Florida will be lost to development by 2070.

This sprawl doesn't just lay waste to beautiful open spaces. It threatens our quality of life in other tangible ways.

Consider water pollution, for instance. Developers are paving over fertile cropland to construct housing developments, shopping centers and highways. To feed a growing population with less land, farmers will turn to harmful pesticides and fertilizers to boost their crop yields. And since we're paving over natural land with impermeable asphalt and concrete, much of that fertilizer will run off into our water supply.

This future isn't inevitable. If Congress simply ended chain migration for recent immigrants' non-nuclear family members, it'd reduce the projected U.S. population in 2060 by tens of millions of people — without forcing anyone currently in the United States to leave.

Likewise, requiring all employers to use E-Verify, a free online system that vets people's ID papers to confirm their work eligibility, would humanely deter illegal immigration. Most illegal immigrants come here to work -- if they know they won't find jobs, they won't make the dangerous journey north in the first place.

Planting trees and cleaning up parks is great. But if Americans really want to preserve open spaces for future generations, they'll need to think bigger. It's time for environmentalists to call for humane reductions in immigration levels.

Link

.

[Baron Samedi]

New Finnish Study Finds Human Activity Has Minor Influence on Global Temperature Change

A Finnish study done by researchers at the University of Turku found that mankind only accounts for a minute portion of the global temperature change over the past 100 years.

Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, claim in their paper (pdf), entitled “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic (man-made) climate change,” published on June 29.

“The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude (i.e. 10 times) too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice.”

According to the study, even though the global temperature has risen by 0.1 degrees celsius the past 100 years, human activity only accounts for a tenth of that amount, about 0.01 degrees celsius, a negligible amount.

They claim that the IPCC’s findings overestimate the influence of CO2 on climate change and human activities which contribute to the global temperature rise.

Furthermore, they claim that they have only used experimental evidence in their study, whereas researchers of the IPCC formulated statements are based on computational results, which filtered out the tremendous influence of cloud formation because it simply didn’t fit their theory.

“That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the greenhouse gases in the observed temperature,” The report said.

Instead, their findings point out that low cloud formations are responsible for climate change, they claim. “The changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.”

These findings corroborate well with a report by researchers from the University of Kobe in Japan, published on June 28, entitled, “Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate,” that also states that cloud formations—that often go unnoticed by regularly used computing models—make up for the most part of climate change.

CONTINUED...

https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-fi...e_3003377.html

Study here;

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf


Japanese study referred to here;

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal
Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth’s climate


Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal

July 3, 2019
Research Center for Inland Seas


New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an “umbrella effect”.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth’s climate. The findings were made by a research team led by Professor Masayuki Hyodo (Research Center for Inland Seas, Kobe University) and published on June 28 in the online edition of Scientific Reports.

The Svensmark Effect is a hypothesis that galactic cosmic rays induce low cloud formation and influence the Earth’s climate. Tests based on recent meteorological observation data only show minute changes in the amounts of galactic cosmic rays and cloud cover, making it hard to prove this theory. However, during the last geomagnetic reversal transition, when the amount of galactic cosmic rays increased dramatically, there was also a large increase in cloud cover, so it should be possible to detect the impact of cosmic rays on climate at a higher sensitivity.

CONTINUED...

http://www.kobe-u.ac.jp/research_at_..._07_03_01.html

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

Furthermore, they claim that they have only used experimental evidence in their study, whereas researchers of the IPCC formulated statements are based on computational results, which filtered out the tremendous influence of cloud formation because it simply didn’t fit their theory.

To be clear, the issue with clouds in the GCM programs that are used for climate modeling is not that they are "filtered" out, or "rejected" because they don't fit a theory.

It's simply that they are not explicitly modeled. That is, there isn't an established physics formula that the programs use to calculate how clouds are formed, and what impact they have for one very simple reason.

No one knows enough about cloud formation and impact to create such a formula.

As such, clouds are handled through a process known as Parametrization.

Of course a host of other factors are handled the same way, which is why many of the AGW advocates don't want you to know how the sausage is made.

The use of Parametrization is a long established element of computer modeling, but one must understand that computer models are not necessarily reality.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m3dZl3yfGpc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[subroc]

So your sayin' that who whole "robust" claim as it related to modeling might not be all that true?

Originally Posted by O_P_T

To be clear, the issue with clouds in the GCM programs that are used for climate modeling is not that they are "filtered" out, or "rejected" because they don't fit a theory.

It's simply that they are not explicitly modeled. That is, there isn't an established physics formula that the programs use to calculate how clouds are formed, and what impact they have for one very simple reason.

No one knows enough about cloud formation and impact to create such a formula.

As such, clouds are handled through a process known as Parametrization.

Of course a host of other factors are handled the same way, which is why many of the AGW advocates don't want you to know how the sausage is made.

The use of Parametrization is a long established element of computer modeling, but one must understand that computer models are not necessarily reality.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m3dZl3yfGpc" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0"></iframe>

[Big/Sky/Fly]

Things would be so much better if they wouldn't keep manipulating the weather...that alone IS fucking up most things.

[O_P_T]

Originally Posted by subroc

So your sayin' that who whole "robust" claim as it related to modeling might not be all that true?

Not only no, but fuck no.

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

To be clear, the issue with clouds in the GCM programs that are used for climate modeling is not that they are "filtered" out, or "rejected" because they don't fit a theory.

It's simply that they are not explicitly modeled. That is, there isn't an established physics formula that the programs use to calculate how clouds are formed, and what impact they have for one very simple reason.

No one knows enough about cloud formation and impact to create such a formula.

As such, clouds are handled through a process known as Parametrization.

Of course a host of other factors are handled the same way, which is why many of the AGW advocates don't want you to know how the sausage is made.

The use of Parametrization is a long established element of computer modeling, but one must understand that computer models are not necessarily reality.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m3dZl3yfGpc" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I understand that, but in the end, your models have to produce something that can replicate past climate, and accurately predict future climate.

The only three 100% accurate claims that can be made based on the climate models;

1. They will be wrong. 100% chance they will not accurately predict future climate.

2. Every computer model, all 1000+ of them, will all be wrong on the same side of actual temperature measurements, which is to say, every computer model has a 100% chance of being wrong by overestimating the temperature.

3. The 100% wrong climate models will be used to create policy, and get reported as "science", factual, and undeniable. To prove it, they will take a vote and "consensus makes science".
I'm sure all of those "consensus science" folks will likewise agree that God exists, too, because the vast majority of people believe he does, and that establishes scientific fact, apparently.

[O_P_T]

This was from the the Dems debate last night. DNC Chairman Tom Perez was firing up the crowd and came out with this little gem.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.mrctv.org/embed/541983" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Threatens our universe?



Seriously?

Does he perhaps not understand what a word means, like someone else?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OHVjs4aobqs" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[AnOldTroll]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

This was from the the Dems debate last night. DNC Chairman Tom Perez was firing up the crowd and came out with this little gem.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.mrctv.org/embed/541983" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A black frame is what I see.
Maybe that was what you were conveying.

[BostonTim]

Everyone seems to have vacated climate change and jumped back onto Global warming with a vengence. Time to point out the liars and the bad science with renewed vigor.



Cheers

[Giant Octopodes]

Two things:

1) I'm not remotely convinced that if the temperature went up on average 1.5 degrees celcius it would be an utter disaster and end life as we know it on the planet. I'm not in favor of dramatic, knee jerk reactions to slight climate variance which can itself cause palpable harm, and whose efficacy is not yet understood, and thus it may not even help.

2) From a "conservation of resources" standpoint, we need to understand that we're at the point in human civilization where digging resources out of the earth is really cheap, and we're also at the point where we can globally deplete resources. If everyone on the planet decides to eat Salmon, barring regulation and intervention, we can fish salmon to extinction in a couple years, no problem. The cost of the fish will never rise high enough for the market to regulate itself and prevent that from occurring.

So at this time, we *can* strip mine all fossil fuels, natural gas, and other carbon deposits out of the earth, and burn them all for fuel. Even IF that would have no adverse impact (and mock the doomsday crew all you want, averse health effects, birth defects, and so forth have a demonstrable correlation to increases in air pollution), does anyone really think that's a good idea?

Cooking with a gas stove or grill is great, and vastly superior to charcoal and electric in my opinion. I want that to still be an option for people 100 years from now, but when my propane tank for my grill holds 5 pounds and lasts me a month of fairly heavy use, while a 1000MW plant burns about 4.8 Million Tons of gas PER DAY, I'm concerned that won't happen.

So regardless of the absurdity of certain claims from the most ardent climate change supporters, does anyone think it's a bad idea to transition Away from burning all the natural resources built up over the entire history of our planet, and for our electricity generation and transportation at minimum transitioning towards renewables, nuclear, electric vehicles, that kind of thing, even if it's marginally more expensive?

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by O_P_T

This was from the the Dems debate last night. DNC Chairman Tom Perez was firing up the crowd and came out with this little gem.

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="https://www.mrctv.org/embed/541983" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Threatens our universe?



Seriously?

Does he perhaps not understand what a word means, like someone else?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OHVjs4aobqs" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wow.

Somebody had better phone Marvin Martian and warn him.

[patswin]

LOL


https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-...-warming-again

[Baron Samedi]

Originally Posted by patswin

LOL


https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-...-warming-again

Yeah...the world will end about the same time Iran gets nukes, in less than 20 years. That's what I've been told for the last 30 years.

[O.Z.O.]

Originally Posted by Giant Octopodes

So regardless of the absurdity of certain claims from the most ardent climate change supporters, does anyone think it's a bad idea to transition Away from burning all the natural resources built up over the entire history of our planet, and for our electricity generation and transportation at minimum transitioning towards renewables, nuclear, electric vehicles, that kind of thing, even if it's marginally more expensive?

of course not, but the key word in your point is TRANSITION
. Effective transition takes time. The Libs want it to happen immediately, as in yesterday, they want it to be all at once and don't give a shit if it destroys our economy and way of life as a result.