Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, October 06, 2017

Stronger hurricanes, hotter heat waves, more frequent wildfires and more severe public-health issues are all adding to the costs of climate change, which will reach almost $1 billion a day in the U.S. within a decade, according to a report released Wednesday. Total costs to address the impact of rising temperatures will swell 50 percent by 2027, to $360 billion annually, according to the study from the Universal Ecological Fund. That equates to about 55 percent of expected economic growth in the U.S. The report comes as the U.S. continues to reel from one of the costliest hurricane seasons in history. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria have inflicted an estimated $173 billion in damage in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. On the West Coast, record dry conditions and heat have triggered wildfires in nine states. Unless the U.S. cuts fossil fuel use, the economic toll from such events will continue to rise, the study concludes.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

[me: good graphics in the cited article that show the cost of extreme weather events per state over the past few decades.]

[me again: the graphics are better, and easier to understand, than my description of them. :) ]

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And how do you prove that is due to climate change much less man caused climate change?

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-10-04 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#1 | POSTED BY SNIPER

I guess you don't believe in evolution or tectonic plate shifts, either, huh?

#3 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-05 02:39 PM | Reply

Anyway, that is a small price to pay for the freedom to roll coal while in a big old truck next to a ----- pruis when they have their windows down.

I am getting a ------ just thinking about it.

#4 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-10-05 05:40 PM | Reply

#1 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Are you a flat earther too?

#5 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-10-06 09:35 PM | Reply

The ------------------- just nominated a coal lobbyist to help lead EPA.

www.scientificamerican.com

#Dotard

#8 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2017-10-07 12:06 AM | Reply

How do they know it isn't $6 billion a day?

#9 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-10-07 07:20 AM | Reply

--How do they know it isn't $6 billion a day?

Good question. How do they know it isn't $6 million a day? These kinds of reports that attempt to put numbers to highly complex phenomena decades in the future are worse than useless.

#10 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 08:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Trump Moves to Increase Subsidy for Coal Mining on Federal Lands"

nymag.com

Trump and the right wing conservatives live in a dream world where nothing bad can happen due to fossil fuels because fossil fuel industrialists own them but in the real world the glaciers continue to melt. Quit trying to push the fossil fuel agenda, it's absurd, it obviously not true, and worse the energy produced is now more expensive than the energy we can get from alternative sources which don't contribute to global warming. When the government subsidizes coal mining, we know our government is just pandering.

#14 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-07 10:38 AM | Reply

Looks like my posts are causing the censors some discomfort.

#15 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 10:54 AM | Reply

"Looks like my posts are causing the censors some discomfort." - #15 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 10:54 AM

This is a privately-owned Web site and we're all just guests here.

Don't like how it is run?

Then leave.

Nothing's stopping you, Raystradamus.

#16 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-07 10:58 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Looks like my posts are causing the censors some discomfort."

I don't usually agree with your posts but I disagree with "censors" much more. If you had posts which were deleted, providing they weren't obscene which is not usually your style, then I support your objection. If a post is not incredibly obscene then it should be allowed to be read by all of us. Censorship is the one thing that could kill DR. Personally, I'm not going to stand for it.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-07 11:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Danni

It wasn't obscene. No personal attacks. Just cold logic that typically upsets the liberal mindset.

#18 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 11:13 AM | Reply

--Censorship is the one thing that could kill DR. Personally, I'm not going to stand for it.

#17 | Posted by danni

Don't like how it is run?

Then leave.

Nothing's stopping you, dannidamus

#16 | Posted by Hans

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 11:14 AM | Reply

Don't like how it is run?

I wouldn't change how it is run. I learn something new every time I post here.

In this instance, I'm hitting on some deep insecurities about the rationality of the global warming narrative.

#20 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 11:19 AM | Reply

"I wouldn't change how it is run. I learn something new every time I post here."

Me too. That's why I would object to any censorship though I don't object to moderation policies.

Dannidamus....OK, I can get a little pompous because I am passionate, I don't apologize for that, I'm proud of that.

#21 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-07 11:23 AM | Reply

"In this instance, I'm hitting on some deep insecurities about the rationality of the global warming narrative."

I support your ability to disagree with 99% of the scientists in the world. I support your ability to disagree with the fact that all the glaciers in the world, which have existed for thousands of years, are melting. Good luck with that though.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-07 11:26 AM | Reply

I support your ability to disagree with the fact that all the glaciers in the world, which have existed for thousands of years, are melting.

12,000 years of warming is a mere blip in a longer term hundred thousand year cycle.

commons.wikimedia.org

I support your ability to disagree with 99% of the scientists in the world.

There can be no objective science the government is paying the bills. BTW, that 99% is a made up number.

#23 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 11:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"There can be no objective science the the fossil fuel industry (Koch brothers) is paying the bills."

You even quote the quasi-scientific ideas that the fossil fuel industry puts out continuously. Grow up Ray, how is it a negative thing if the world replaces fossil fuels with solar power? Who is harmed other that those who make their incomes from fossil fuels? And even those people can be trained for new jobs in solar power. So who really loses? Billionaires like the Kochs. Is that a problem for you?

#24 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-07 12:07 PM | Reply

"I don't usually agree with your posts but I disagree with "censors" much more."

#17 | POSTED BY DANNI

I agree.

Other than violating the moderation policy, what one here would consider a highly controversial post(plain BS)should , well......Retort.

#25 | Posted by shane at 2017-10-07 12:07 PM | Reply

You even quote the quasi-scientific ideas that the fossil fuel industry puts out continuously.

You keep trying to pigeon hole me into your mindset. I go by the merits of the science. Reason tells me to look at the very long term trends in climate change. 12,000 years is too short.

By the end of the year 2,000, there were three ice drilling projects, two in Greenland and one in Antarctic. They revealed a 100,000 glacial cycle with short periods of warming. In #23, linked you to one of those findings.

Here's one that covers the past 400 years.

en.wikipedia.org

Another graph that shows earth cooling.

www.iceagenow.info

#26 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 12:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Montana's Glacier National Park is home to 25 glaciers. That may seem like a lot, but in 1850, there were 150 glaciers in this area. Today's much lower number reflects a distressing trend -- based on the current rate of climate change, there may not be any glaciers in Glacier National Park by the year 2030."

www.nationalparks.org

#27 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-07 12:32 PM | Reply

Danni

That's meaningless.

Again, look at the the long term cycles that span hundreds of thousands of years.

The sun and only the sun drives climate change.

#28 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 12:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There can be no objective science the government is paying the bills. BTW, that 99% is a made up number.

#23 | POSTED BY RAY

Well, with hard hitting *snark* statements like this you must be making the "censors" uncomfortable!

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 01:02 PM | Reply

Again, look at the the long term cycles that span hundreds of thousands of years.

Using what data? The data collected by the very same scientists telling us the globe is warming that is used to determine that our current rate of change is different than in past cycles? That data?

Why would you trust that data? It's probably made up in order to make our current warming look worse to keep the grant $$ flowing, no?

The sun and only the sun drives climate change.

Amazing how one can be so smug yet so ridiculously wrong.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 01:05 PM | Reply

"The sun and only the sun drives climate change."

Enjoy your vacation.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 01:46 PM | Reply

Ray seeing as oxygen was a trace element when earth was formed a few billion years ago, how'd it get to be 20% of the atmosphere today?

Or is that not climate change?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 01:48 PM | Reply

--"The sun and only the sun drives climate change."

Enjoy your vacation.

#31 | Posted by snoofy

I don't agree with Ray on that, but why should he be suspended? Don't you have the intellectual chops to debunk him?

#33 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 01:52 PM | Reply

Using what data?

Look at the charts I posted. They are based on ice core drillings in Greenland and Antarctica.

Amazing how one can be so smug yet so ridiculously wrong.
#30 | Posted by jpw

It's not amazing you can be smug in thinking I am wrong.

Well, with hard hitting *snark* statements like this you must be making the "censors" uncomfortable!
#29 | Posted by jpw

The fact remains that the censor did delete it. It has in part to do with the futility of imagining government taxes and regulations will make a difference.

#34 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 02:16 PM | Reply

"Don't you have the intellectual chops to debunk him?"

You might, if you can answer #32.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 02:46 PM | Reply

Look at the charts I posted. They are based on ice core drillings in Greenland and Antarctica.

So science is good when it agrees with you?

It's not amazing you can be smug in thinking I am wrong.

Are you really going to argue against the concept of the green house effect? Or the concepts of insulation, heat radiation, absorption and reflection?

Because that's exactly what you're doing when you say the sun is the only thing that drives climate change.

The fact remains that the censor did delete it.

Which is a known policy on this site for misinformation.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 03:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Don't you have the intellectual chops to debunk him?"
You might, if you can answer #32.
#35 | Posted by snoofy

Sorry man. I know you too well.

Here's a few links. Do your own homework.

www.iceagenow.info
www.youtube.com
commons.wikimedia.org
www.amazon.com www.youtube.com

I spent months on this topic. You people expect to be convinced within the 30 seconds of your attention span.

#37 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 03:09 PM | Reply

--You might, if you can answer #32.

I don't have to, I agree with mmgw. Now answer the question why you can't debunk Ray and want him suspended, like a good little SJW.

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 03:12 PM | Reply

Which is a known policy on this site for misinformation.
#36 | Posted by jpw

As filtered according to the censor's own belief system.

So science is good when it agrees with you?

I didn't start with a preconception. See #37.

Are you really going to argue against the concept of the green house effect? Or the concepts of insulation, heat radiation, absorption and reflection?

With qualifications. The greenhouse effect only works when the sun is shining. The back half of earth is shrouded against cold dark outer space. Whatever heat is gained in the day is lost at night. Cloud cover has a big impact as does changes in the sun's intensity with seasonal changes. There is no accumulation. You want proof. Warming models have been consistently wrong. Earth is in a cooling cycle. See #37.

#39 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 03:33 PM | Reply

"I don't have to, I agree with mmgw."

Then explain it to Ray.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 03:35 PM | Reply

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I get a kick out of newsworthy flags when I'm criticized.

On this site, I'm like a stick on a hornets nest.

#41 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 03:36 PM | Reply

--Which is a known policy on this site for misinformation.

Misinformation is in the eye of the ideologue. You're confusing "misinformation" with "difference of opinion".

#42 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 03:37 PM | Reply

Then explain it to Ray.
#40 | Posted by snoofy

Looks like my response to Snoofy in #37 exceeded his 30 second attention span.

#43 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 03:38 PM | Reply

"I don't have to, I agree with mmgw."

Then explain it to Ray.

#40 | Posted by snoofy

No, you explain it. I'm not going to do your homework.

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 03:39 PM | Reply

"No, you explain it. I'm not going to do your homework."

Homework?

I asked Ray if going from trace atmospheric O2 to 20% atmospheric O2 was a climate change, and presuming it was, was it was caused by the sun.

I already did my homework on that.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 03:41 PM | Reply

"Looks like my response to Snoofy in #37 exceeded his 30 second attention span."

It wasn't responsive to the question, Ray.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 03:41 PM | Reply

"Misinformation is in the eye of the ideologue."

It's well known what misinformation is.

You are playing the "two sides to every story" game, which is the cornerstone of your alt-white bubble.

Like when you posted all those links about who shot down MH17. Like there can be two equally valid stories about who shot down an airplane.

Like "the moon landings were faked" might be a valid opinion.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#36 | POSTED BY JPW

So let me see if I understand your kind of science. Conflicting science is to ignored if it doesn't agree with your position?

This is what you accuse Ray of... .

Ray I disagree with your proposition that all heat from the sun on a given day is lost at night.

If this were true the Earth's surface temp would be near zero because the earth, according to your theory can't retain heat.

#48 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-10-07 03:46 PM | Reply

"Ray I disagree with your proposition that all heat from the sun on a given day is lost at night."

That's Ray's cue to exit.

Bye Ray.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 03:48 PM | Reply

"Like when you posted all those links about who shot down MH17"

What are you babbling about? What's MH1?

In any event, it has nothing to do with the topic and you still are ducking the question of why you are calling for suspension rather than just refuting him with facts.

#50 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 03:52 PM | Reply

I asked Ray if going from trace atmospheric O2 to 20% atmospheric O2 was a climate change, and presuming it was, was it was caused by the sun.
I already did my homework on that.
#45 | Posted by snoofy

From fusion and solar wind I presume? The last I read, it originally was cyanobacteria. O2 was once close to 40%.

#51 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 03:54 PM | Reply

If this were true the Earth's surface temp would be near zero because the earth, according to your theory can't retain heat.
#48 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Of course earth loses heat. Earth is surrounded by outer space with temps close to absolute zero. It's pumped up every day by the sun.

#52 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:07 PM | Reply

"Ray I disagree with your proposition that all heat from the sun on a given day is lost at night."
That's Ray's cue to exit.
Bye Ray.
#49 | Posted by snoofy

I'll bet that those links I supplied were all for nothing.

#53 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:10 PM | Reply

You're confusing "misinformation" with "difference of opinion".

Thermodynamics isn't subjective.

#54 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Nearly everything you post is for nothing.
Why should your links be any different?

How about you formulate a sentence or two about where Earth's oxygen came from?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:13 PM | Reply

"From fusion and solar wind I presume?"

I really hope I'm reading this wrong but it sure sounds like you are saying oxygen is created in the Sun by solar fusion and carry to planet Earth by solar winds.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:15 PM | Reply

The greenhouse effect only works when the sun is shining.

You mean it only works when there is energy input.

Of course the earth wouldn't be as it is today if it were in the outer reaches of the solar system or in interstellar space.

You're stating an obvious but oversimplified truism and declaring yourself informed.

The back half of earth is shrouded against cold dark outer space. Whatever heat is gained in the day is lost at night.

Ok. So you don't understand this at all do you? Because for this to be true, you have to ignore the greenhouse effect entirely.

Also, the Earth isn't a closed system. There is always energy flowing into our atmosphere, which is why climate change is measured/expressed as mean global temperature.

Considering this, your statement therefore means that the Earth is radiating an equal amount of energy from the dark side as it's receiving on the lit side, an assertion that can only be true if the greenhouse effect is entirely ignored.

In other words, the statement is nonsensical for multiple reasons.

You want proof. Warming models have been consistently wrong.

That doesn't remotely prove your assertion whatsoever. It only means our understanding is incomplete and therefore our models flawed. Nothing more, nothing less.

#57 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So let me see if I understand your kind of science. Conflicting science is to ignored if it doesn't agree with your position?
This is what you accuse Ray of...

Not even close.

Misinterpreted, misunderstood or cherry picked science is not science.

Not to be condescending, but are you knowledgeable enough about physics and climate science to understand why what he's saying isn't accurate?

Because that's the only way one can confuse his statements with an accurate reflection of reality.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

I really hope I'm reading this wrong but it sure sounds like you are saying oxygen is created in the Sun

Well, technically all elements are created in stars.

But that's a hyper-literal answer to your question.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 04:25 PM | Reply

I really hope I'm reading this wrong but it sure sounds like you are saying oxygen is created in the Sun by solar fusion and carry to planet Earth by solar winds.

Notice the question mark: "From fusion and solar wind I presume?"

"I asked Ray if going from trace atmospheric O2 to 20% atmospheric O2 was a climate change, and presuming it was, was it was caused by the sun."

It sounds like you are saying O2 comes from the sun.

My response was cyanobacteria.

#60 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:25 PM | Reply

--Thermodynamics isn't subjective.

But the word "misinformation" is. The group that produced this "study" has credibility problems of it's own, not to mention a number of scandals involving "scientists" fudging the historical numbers to conform with their models.

#61 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 04:34 PM | Reply

So let me see if I understand...
#48 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Let me stop you right there, Andreà. Without needing to read another word in your post. It's clear you don't understand a great many things.

#62 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-10-07 04:36 PM | Reply

"My response was cyanobacteria."

Well, your earlier response was "The sun and only the sun drives climate change."

That's the whole issue here.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:38 PM | Reply

The group that produced this "study" has credibility problems...

Thanks to the misinformation spread by the oil industry.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-10-07 04:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The greenhouse effect only works when the sun is shining."

The sun is always shining, you stupid old man.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:39 PM | Reply

That's the whole issue here.

The real issue here is that Ray is a troll.

#66 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-10-07 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Because for this to be true, you have to ignore the greenhouse effect entirely.
#57 | Posted by jpw

I'm dismissing the possibility of long term temperature accumulation from the greenhouse effect.

That doesn't remotely prove your assertion whatsoever. It only means our understanding is incomplete and therefore our models flawed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not true. It means that the theory behind the models is flawed.

Again, this chart shows an 8,000 year cooling trend to the present. Another chart on the same page shows cyclical variations to 450 thousand years ago.

commons.wikimedia.org

A cooling trend of this magnitude is going to require massive increases in energy. To force large reductions in energy consumption at a time like this is going to have catastrophic consequences.

#67 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:40 PM | Reply

And, the Greenhouse Effect doesn't only work when the sun is shining.

It's not activated by solar radiation.

"The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere."

The sun isn't even in the definition, stupid old man.

#68 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:42 PM | Reply

The real issue here is that Ray is a troll.
#66 | Posted by ClownShack

Like an atheist in a born again Christian website.

#69 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:42 PM | Reply

It's too bad there's no one left in this world who loves or trusts you, Ray, because you've clearly come unhinged without any support structure.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:43 PM | Reply

How about you formulate a sentence or two about where Earth's oxygen came from?

I know! I know! (My hand is waving in the air).

In the Beginning:
Photolysis of water vapor and carbon dioxide via UV radiation and lightning produced the hydroxyl radical and the monatomic oxygen radical, which when recombined produced oxygen in small concentrations and released monatomic hydrogen radicals into space. This process produced oxygen for the early atmosphere before photosynthesis became dominant.

Next, once sufficient oxygen had accumulated in the stratosphere, it was acted on by sunlight to form ozone, which allowed colonization of the land. The first evidence for vascular plant colonization of the land dates back to ~400 million years ago.

And finally, the availability of oxygen enabled a diversification of metabolic pathways, leading to a great increase in efficiency. The bulk of the oxygen formed once life began on the planet, principally through the process of photosynthesis, where carbon dioxide and water vapor, in the presence of light, produce organics and oxygen. The reaction can go either way as in the case of respiration or decay the organic matter takes up oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water vapor.

Ref:

1. globalchange.umich.edu

#71 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-07 04:45 PM | Reply

The sun is always shining, you stupid old man.
#65 | Posted by snoofy

I learn something new every day from Snoofy. I just learned that earth is surrounded by sunlight on all sides.

The sun isn't even in the definition, stupid old man.
#68 | Posted by snoofy

The greenhouse effect works in the dark? You smart.

#72 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:47 PM | Reply

"What are you babbling about? What's MH1?"

It's a commercial jetliner shot down by Russians.
You posted many stories about how it was shot down by Ukranians.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:47 PM | Reply

"The greenhouse effect works in the dark? You smart."

Smarter than you.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's too bad there's no one left in this world who loves or trusts you, Ray, because you've clearly come unhinged without any support structure.
#70 | Posted by snoofy

My parents still love me. I talk to them every night from their graves.

#75 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--You posted many stories about how it was shot down by Ukranians.

Prove it.

#76 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 04:49 PM | Reply

"The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere."

Why would this process stop at nighttime, Ray?

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:49 PM | Reply

"You posted many stories about how it was shot down by Ukranians.
Prove it."

You deny it?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 04:50 PM | Reply

Smarter than you.
#74 | Posted by snoofy

I bow to your eminence.

#79 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 04:53 PM | Reply

Frasier: I'm Dr. Frasier Crane, and this is my brother, Dr. Niles Crane, the eminent psychiatrist.

Niles: My brother is too kind. He was already eminent when my eminence was merely imminent.

#80 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-10-07 04:57 PM | Reply

A lot of deleted post here.
Don't let the truth get in the way!

#81 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-10-07 04:57 PM | Reply

not to mention a number of scandals involving "scientists" fudging the historical numbers to conform with their models.

Which are only "scandals" to media outlets with denialist biases.

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--Which are only "scandals" to media outlets with denialist biases.

Like East Anglia?

www.telegraph.co.uk

p.s. "denialist" is a profoundly unscientific term. Galileo was persecuted for denying the existing scientific consensus of his time.

#83 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 05:04 PM | Reply

"The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet's atmosphere warms the planet's surface to a temperature above what it would be without its atmosphere."
Why would this process stop at nighttime, Ray?

"The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases in the Earth's atmosphere (the air around the Earth) entraps infrared radiation. This makes the planet become warmer, similar to the way it makes a greenhouse become warmer."
Source:
simple.wikipedia.org

The key point is that glass/atmosphere lets in all the suns rays and traps infrared radiation. Glass/atmosphere generates infrared heat from the sun's rays. No sun. No generated infrared.

That's why the interior of your car is hot on a sunny day and ambient on cloudy days and at night.

#84 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 05:11 PM | Reply

The Catholic Church took a denialist approach to the possibility that man is not the center of the universe.

You take a denialist approach to the possibility that man can alter climate.

You like to think you stand with Galileo, but you don't.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 05:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"No sun. No generated infrared."

Nobody has suggested otherwise.
But blackbody radiation doesn't stop at night, stupid old man.

Nulli, can you explain it to him? He might believe a fellow denier.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 05:15 PM | Reply

I'm dismissing the possibility of long term temperature accumulation from the greenhouse effect.

Ummmmm you realize that historical cycling was closely tied to greenhouse effects, right?

And that there is life to begin with because of am accumulation and maintenance of heat owing to the greenhouse effect, right?

You are literally saying "reality isn't true because I say it's not".

Not true. It means that the theory behind the models is flawed.

Nope.

You have a habit over overdrawing conclusions to meet your expectations.

As for your chart I don't think it says what you think it says. The dotted line is the average global temp in the mid-20th century as a reference point.

The 2004 with an arrow is the average global temp in 2004 (curious to see a similar graph with the last 13 years of data added), which means the black line, if the x axis were expanded to a better scale, would show a sharp increase upwards in the black line.

#87 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 05:17 PM | Reply

But blackbody radiation doesn't stop at night, stupid old man.

With age, comes knowledge and wisdom. You wouldn't understand.

Blackbodies absorb heat. That's what the cosmos does. It's an infinite heat sink.

#88 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 05:21 PM | Reply

Like East Anglia?

Which was nothing but cherry picked statements that were used to make a ton of denier hay.

It was nothing, no matter how many tabloid columns written by climate denying intelligent design supporting hucksters say otherwise.

"denialist" is a profoundly unscientific term. Galileo was persecuted for denying the existing scientific consensus of his time.

Oh Jesus H...

You want to know why our current deniers aren't Galileo? Galileo had actual evidence to support his positions, not nitpicking, disingenuous nonsense that is offered by climate deniers.

#89 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 05:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No sun. No generated infrared.

And?

No one is denying that energy from the sun is required.

#90 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 05:24 PM | Reply

"Blackbodies absorb heat."

Who said they didn't?
You're saying the earth's blackbody radiation stops at nighttime.
Because you're stupid.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 05:25 PM | Reply

I like how Nulli who claims to believe in mmgw brought up East Anglia.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 05:26 PM | Reply

-- according to the study from the Universal Ecological Fund.

An online news service sponsored by the world's premier scientific association unwittingly promoted a study making the false claim that catastrophic global warming would occur within nine years, the Guardian has learned.

The study, by an NGO based in Argentina, claimed the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020 and projected dire consequences for global food supply. A press release for the Food Gap study was carried by EurekAlert!, the news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) , and the story was picked up by a number of international news organisations on Tuesday.

"This is happening much faster than we expected," Liliana Hisas, executive director of the Universal Ecological Fund (UEF) and author of the study, said of her findings.

But, in an episode recalling criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), when the UN climate science body wrongly claimed the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035• , the UEF claims about rising temperatures over the next decade were unfounded.

www.theguardian.com

#93 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-07 05:28 PM | Reply

Blackbodies absorb heat. That's what the cosmos does. It's an infinite heat sink.

But the entire point of the greenhouse effect is prevention of radiation, infrared in this case, from being released into space. Right?

#94 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 05:31 PM | Reply

Ummmmm you realize that historical cycling was closely tied to greenhouse effects, right?
And that there is life to begin with because of am accumulation and maintenance of heat owing to the greenhouse effect, right?
You are literally saying "reality isn't true because I say it's not".

Sounds like you are attributing sun cycles to the greenhouse effect.

As for your chart I don't think it says what you think it says. The dotted line is the average global temp in the mid-20th century as a reference point.

??? The reference point is from 10,000 years ago. The heavy solid line shows an 8,000 year decline in average temperature.

if the x axis were expanded to a better scale, would show a sharp increase upwards in the black line.

Maybe. The long term trend is stronger. These two sites keep track of climate news from around the world. The American media has nothing to offer.
www.iceagenow.info
www.youtube.com

#95 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 05:44 PM | Reply

Sounds like you are attributing sun cycles to the greenhouse effect.

No, I'm accurately stating known information.

For instance:

www.google.com

But are you really boiling this down to the extreme of the sun being the sole factor controlling climate?

The heavy solid line shows an 8,000 year decline in average temperature.

The entire graph is normalized to the average global temperature in the mid-20th century, Ray. Do you know what that means? It means the 8,000 year cooling trend you're pointing to is a period of time with the same average temp as now to 0.5 degrees lower than now.

Which means it's gone up, because that graph is saying that period was cooler than it is currently.

And the marking of the 2004 level is even higher. An updated version of that graph would show a significant and rapid upward slope to the black line, which is exactly what GW science says!

Maybe. The long term trend is stronger.

On what basis do you make such a statement?

#96 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 05:56 PM | Reply

But the entire point of the greenhouse effect is prevention of radiation, infrared in this case, from being released into space. Right?
#94 | Posted by jpw

Prevent radiation? I wouldn't put it that way. I think you mean trap radiation.

The entire planet is losing heat to outer space at a constant rate. For daytime temps to rise, the sun has generate more infrared heat than what is lost. There may be more to it than that. I look at it from an energy balance perspective.

I think I am answering your question.

#97 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 05:58 PM | Reply

"Prevent radiation? I wouldn't put it that way. I think you mean trap radiation."

Call it what you want.
Why do you say it only happens during daylight?

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 06:03 PM | Reply

Prevent radiation? I wouldn't put it that way. I think you mean trap radiation.

Sure.

The entire planet is losing heat to outer space at a constant rate.

It's relatively constant over short periods, but can vary over long periods, ie by increasing or decreasing the insulative properties of the atmosphere.

In other words, by fluctuations in the greenhouse effect which is precisely what the theory behind GW is all about.

For daytime temps to rise, the sun has generate more infrared heat than what is lost.

The Earth can increase in temperature even with a constant energy output from the sun by:

A. Decreased reflection of solar radiation
B. Increased absorption of solar energy (related to A)
C. Increased retention of radiated infrared radiation

All are occurring now to some degree. Loss of polar ice affects A and B, as does deforestation. Increased CO2 affects C, which feeds forward via increased water vapor content (exerts affect on A and B, too) and increased methane concentrations.

There may be more to it than that. I look at it from an energy balance perspective.

It's entirely an energy balance (ie equilibrium) question. See above for a simple representation with only three variables.

#99 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 06:08 PM | Reply

#96 | Posted by jpw

I see your point. Fair enough.

#100 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 06:16 PM | Reply

#99 | Posted by jpw

I accept what you are saying. The climate models, as I understand them, assume a constant output from the sun. That's the missing variable.

I haven't changed my thesis about the sun driving climate change. It gets into another subject about the nuclear model of the sun verses the electric model. I've already spent a lot of time here and I'm not in the mood to start a new topic.

#101 | Posted by Ray at 2017-10-07 06:36 PM | Reply

I've already spent a lot of time here and I'm not in the mood to start a new topic.

Which would be pointless anyway considering I know it exists (you've talked about it) but I know nothing about it.

Plus, the rain has stopped and it's beautiful out so a patio at a restaurant with a drink and dinner sounds about right.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.

#102 | Posted by jpw at 2017-10-07 06:48 PM | Reply

'I haven't changed my thesis about the sun driving climate change."

Basically, what you say is correct because fossil fuels are just stored solar energy which, unfortunately, is now being release in record amounts and thus increasing the heat trapped by the atmosphere and thus causing the temperature to rise.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-07 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Ray is proof that if the beatings continue, morale eventually improves.

For example, Ray now says:
"I haven't changed my thesis about the sun driving climate change."

But in fact he did change his thesis.
Originally Ray's thesis was
"The sun and only the sun drives climate change."

Ray's new thesis opens the door for other climate drivers.
Like "cyanobacteria."

Good job Ray, you're getting it!

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 07:37 PM | Reply

the left has been trying to stop GW since the 70s and have not stopped it yet...........or, according to the left, even slowed it down

Since the Left believes in GW, why is the World spending Billions and Billions of dollars to study GW? because if it has been proven, why aren't we spending this money on solutions?

#105 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-10-08 07:04 PM | Reply

www.pinterest.com

This is why you should trust scientists and their observations about global temperatures...

#106 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-08 08:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort