And better keep Bruce Willis on call for the asteroids. Sorry, couldn’t resist.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Have you looked at the North Pole lately?
- Thread starter igrowone
- Start date
you didn't sound like a dick, just interested
and yeah, there are dangerous things outside of our control
it comes down to the credibility of the climate forecasts, murky as they may be
the odds of bad climate event aren't as low as black holes, and we do have some ability(maybe) to change the outcome
and something i posted a ways back
the climate experts may not know everything
but that doesn't mean they know nothing
Genghis Kush
Active member
Looks like its never going to happen,
Trump will be gone by then,
"While President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he was pulling the US out of the
landmark Paris climate agreement, it will take until the day after the next presidential
election for the US to fully exit the pact."
Because of the way the agreement was designed, it will take years for the US to fully exit
it. According to its rules, the earliest Trump could give written notice of the US's
withdrawal would be November 2019, and the US wouldn't officially exit it until November
4, 2020 — the day after the next presidential election."
Trump will be gone by then,
"While President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he was pulling the US out of the
landmark Paris climate agreement, it will take until the day after the next presidential
election for the US to fully exit the pact."
Because of the way the agreement was designed, it will take years for the US to fully exit
it. According to its rules, the earliest Trump could give written notice of the US's
withdrawal would be November 2019, and the US wouldn't officially exit it until November
4, 2020 — the day after the next presidential election."
It's a non-binding mistake made by the former administration GK,I really don't think Trump is going to sacrifice anything at all pertaining to the American people.Of course if it were an actual treaty instead of a sideshow it would never have passed the two houses even before Trump took office,too many folks with common sense thank goodness.Nothing will change that will bring harm to the U.S. Yeehaw!
Genghis Kush
Active member
"this was a quiet thread for a long time
whacking that climate treaty stirred the pot, nothing wrong with some fresh discussion
perhaps the paris climate treaty will be more potent in death than life
trump isn't getting much support from his fellow billionaires
you know, the people that matter in his world
whacking that climate treaty stirred the pot, nothing wrong with some fresh discussion
perhaps the paris climate treaty will be more potent in death than life
trump isn't getting much support from his fellow billionaires
you know, the people that matter in his world
Life is not a binary choice. I can be against the Paris Agreement and be for clean air...just because someone does not agree with the Paris Agreement does not mean that person is for pollution. Because I don't agree with you does not make me evil...just as you are not evil because you do not mirror my beliefs.
So, history has a way of repeating itself--notice the parallels with the following and what happened with the Paris Agreement (not a big fan of watching the same movie play over and over--as you always know how it will end).
Once upon a time (July 1997) a Republican controlled Senate unanimously (no NO votes by Dems) passed a resolution (S. Res. 98) stating that it would not ratify any global climate treaty that would seriously harm the U.S. economy or that failed to require developing countries (India, China, Russia, Brazil) to reduce their emissions within the same time frame as the developed countries (USA, Canada, Japan, EU).
Less than one year later (November 1998) Prez Clinton signed the Kyota Protocol BUT never submitted it to the Senate for ratification...a step that would make it the "law of the land".
Criticism of the Kyota Protocal include:
1. Speculations were presented as fact.
2. Failed to distinguish between human and non-human climate change predictions.
3. Predictions were pessimistic and unsubstantiated assumptions were applied to worst-case scenarios.
4. Faulty science (data manipulation)
5. Implementation would drastically increase energy costs and cause economic hardship to American workers and families.
6. Unrealistic targets for 2010.
7. Exempts developing nations (biggest polluters) from mandatory emission reduction.
8. The agreement was voluntary and non-binding (very few nations even ratified the Protocol).
In March 2001 Prez Bush announced USA would not implement the Kyota Protocol citing "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide," as one of his primary reasons.
In response the climate changers roared with a vengeance in their opposition--including world leaders attacking Prez Bush relentlessly including name calling. Predictions include the normal cast of characters: rising seas, dead children, un-breathable air, increased CO2 gas, etc.
Hmmm, almost identical events with the Paris Agreement. Funny how history does repeat itself...same issues...same outcome.
Those are the facts...and so is this chart. The base year is 1990 and observe what happened AFTER 2001 (year USA abandoned the Kyota Protocol). Did CO2 gas emission increase or decrease? Notice that BOTH the population and GDP increased (top two lines) while BOTH emissions per GDP and per capita declined.
Source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2016-chapter-executive-summary.pdf
The sun did not turn dark in March 2001 when Kyota Protocol was abandoned...nor did it turn dark in June 2017 when the Paris Agreement was abandoned.
And...don't underestimate the innovation of the capitalistic entrepreneurs here in USA, they will do what they do best--with or without a "climate change" treaty.
One last thing...since both Paris Agreement and Kyota Protocol did not mandate the reduction of CO2 emissions by the biggest polluting countries...then why did environmentalist support these agreements? I thought the reduction of GLOBAL CO2 emission is the goal. If the focus is limited to developed countries (USA, Canada, Japan & EU nations) while the biggest polluters are exempt...then how can it be about the environment (reduction of CO2 emissions)? Just saying...if it ain't about the air, then it is all about money.
So, history has a way of repeating itself--notice the parallels with the following and what happened with the Paris Agreement (not a big fan of watching the same movie play over and over--as you always know how it will end).
Once upon a time (July 1997) a Republican controlled Senate unanimously (no NO votes by Dems) passed a resolution (S. Res. 98) stating that it would not ratify any global climate treaty that would seriously harm the U.S. economy or that failed to require developing countries (India, China, Russia, Brazil) to reduce their emissions within the same time frame as the developed countries (USA, Canada, Japan, EU).
Less than one year later (November 1998) Prez Clinton signed the Kyota Protocol BUT never submitted it to the Senate for ratification...a step that would make it the "law of the land".
Criticism of the Kyota Protocal include:
1. Speculations were presented as fact.
2. Failed to distinguish between human and non-human climate change predictions.
3. Predictions were pessimistic and unsubstantiated assumptions were applied to worst-case scenarios.
4. Faulty science (data manipulation)
5. Implementation would drastically increase energy costs and cause economic hardship to American workers and families.
6. Unrealistic targets for 2010.
7. Exempts developing nations (biggest polluters) from mandatory emission reduction.
8. The agreement was voluntary and non-binding (very few nations even ratified the Protocol).
In March 2001 Prez Bush announced USA would not implement the Kyota Protocol citing "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide," as one of his primary reasons.
In response the climate changers roared with a vengeance in their opposition--including world leaders attacking Prez Bush relentlessly including name calling. Predictions include the normal cast of characters: rising seas, dead children, un-breathable air, increased CO2 gas, etc.
Hmmm, almost identical events with the Paris Agreement. Funny how history does repeat itself...same issues...same outcome.
Those are the facts...and so is this chart. The base year is 1990 and observe what happened AFTER 2001 (year USA abandoned the Kyota Protocol). Did CO2 gas emission increase or decrease? Notice that BOTH the population and GDP increased (top two lines) while BOTH emissions per GDP and per capita declined.
Source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2016-chapter-executive-summary.pdf
The sun did not turn dark in March 2001 when Kyota Protocol was abandoned...nor did it turn dark in June 2017 when the Paris Agreement was abandoned.
And...don't underestimate the innovation of the capitalistic entrepreneurs here in USA, they will do what they do best--with or without a "climate change" treaty.
One last thing...since both Paris Agreement and Kyota Protocol did not mandate the reduction of CO2 emissions by the biggest polluting countries...then why did environmentalist support these agreements? I thought the reduction of GLOBAL CO2 emission is the goal. If the focus is limited to developed countries (USA, Canada, Japan & EU nations) while the biggest polluters are exempt...then how can it be about the environment (reduction of CO2 emissions)? Just saying...if it ain't about the air, then it is all about money.
The U.S. economy could lose about $250 billion in 2025 under Paris Agreement
The U.S. economy could lose about $250 billion in 2025 under Paris Agreement
Executive Summary from a report published by NERA Economic Consulting that projects the loss to comply with Paris Agreement is in the neighborhood of $250 billion by 2025 (less than 10 years from now).
Source: https://www.nera.com/publications/archive/2017/impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-regulations-on-the-industrial-sector.html
The U.S. economy could lose about $250 billion in 2025 under Paris Agreement
Executive Summary from a report published by NERA Economic Consulting that projects the loss to comply with Paris Agreement is in the neighborhood of $250 billion by 2025 (less than 10 years from now).
Source: https://www.nera.com/publications/archive/2017/impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-regulations-on-the-industrial-sector.html
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NERA Economic Consulting was commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation
Center for Policy Research (ACCF CPR) to perform a comprehensive assessment of impacts on
the overall U.S. economy in general, and on the industrial sector in particular, from regulating
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under existing and potential future regulations.
President Obama announced the Climate Action Plan (CAP) to address climate change through
executive action in 2013. In addition to other initiatives not requiring new legislation, it directed
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish the first ever restriction on carbon
dioxide emissions from the electric sector. The EPA issued new rules to reduce GHG emissions
from the electric sector through the “Clean Power Plan” (CPP), claiming under authorities
granted in sections 111(b) and 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
In addition to issuing new regulations to implement its CAP, the Obama Administration
participated in meetings in Paris at the end of 2015 that created a new framework to reduce GHG
emissions, based on voluntary “Nationally Determined Contributions” (NDC) from each country.
The U.S. pledged in its initial NDC to reduce emissions more rapidly and further than the CPP
alone would do, and in its 2016 Second Biennial Report of the United States of America(1)
(USSBR 2016) submitted to the United Nations (UN), it described in broad terms what
additional regulations would be required to achieve those goals. The USSBR 2016 provides
some options to achieve the 2025 NDC target to reduce net GHG emissions by 26 to 28%
relative to 2005 levels. The U.S. NDC from the Paris Agreement is consistent with a straight-
line emissions reduction pathway to economy-wide emission reductions of 80% or more by
2050. These long term goals of reducing emissions are detailed in the U.S.’s mid-century
strategy (USMCS 2016) (2) that envisions a deep decarbonization of the U.S. economy to 80%
below 2005 emissions by 2050.
It is widely agreed that the total potential emissions reductions from existing policies together
with planned policies announced by the Obama Administration are insufficient to achieve the
NDC pledge and would fall dramatically short of the 2050 goal. While the projected size of the
NDC emissions “gap” varies somewhat among various analyses, it is clear that such a gap cannot
be filled without contributions from the industrial sector. Accordingly, this study aims to
estimate the costs and impacts of closing the Paris NDC gap under a number of different
scenarios.
To address the study objectives, we develop a slate of scenarios to bracket the potential
economic impacts on the industrial sectors and the economy as a whole from the U.S. reducing
its GHG emissions as specified in its NDC. The scenarios employ a combination of market-
based and direct measures to restrict GHG emissions. The core scenarios are constructed so that
the U.S. as a whole ultimately meets its NDC emission target. Since the Obama Administration
has taken the course of implementing its CAP through direct sectoral regulations, rather than
broader market-based (i.e. cap-and-trade or carbon tax) measures that would require legislative
action, we design some scenarios to illuminate the impacts of feasible direct measures. In light
of suggestions that EPA could base its climate policies on Section 115 of the CAA, titled
“International Air Pollution,” we design a nationwide cap and trade program and overlay it with
regulatory programs to meet the U.S. NDC target
All the programs to be analyzed are assumed to utilize available Land Use, Land Use Change
and Forestry (LULUCF) offsets to meet the emissions target. The USSBR 2016 report on
actions to reduce GHG emissions includes high and low estimates for sequestration of GHGs due
to changes in land use and forestry that are uncertain and difficult to estimate. Based on these
estimates, we estimate two different offset potentials (average and high) that are counted toward
emission reduction targets in the study. Since this study deals only with regulations to reduce
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion, it excludes the costs of these measures to
increase sequestration and reduce other GHGs. Costs of reducing non-CO2 emissions in the
assumed amounts and of increased sequestration would be additional to the study’s cost
estimated to reduce CO2 emissions. For the core scenario assuming availability of the average
level of offsets, the overall manufacturing sector will have to reduce its emissions by about 38%
from its 2005 levels for the U.S. to meet its NDC target in 2025.
To conduct this study, we used NERA’s NewERA integrated model, which consists of a top-
down general equilibrium macroeconomic model of the U.S. economy and a detailed capacity-
planning and dispatch model of the North American electricity system. The NewERA modeling
framework captures interactions among all parts of the economy and transmits the effects of
sectoral policies throughout the economy. The model’s flexibility allows it to incorporate many
different types of policies, such as those involving industrial, energy, environmental, financial,
labor, and tax matters. The model represents five U.S. regions (four manufacturing based states
and the rest of the U.S.) and captures manufacturing at a subsector level. The model includes 16
industrial sub-sectors, of which five are energy-related sectors and 11 are non-energy sectors. Of
the 11 non-energy sectors reflected in the model, eight are manufacturing sectors and the other
three represent the non-manufacturing subsectors. The model is run from 2016 through 2040 in
three-year time steps.
We highlight below some key findings of our study for the core scenario that sets emissions caps
without trading for each of the four broad sectors – Industrial, Electric, Transportation, and rest
of other sectors – at levels to meet the overall U.S. 2025 NDC target and continue on a path of
80% reduction in emissions by 2050.
The U.S. economy could lose about $250 billion in 2025(4)
As the broadest measure of economic impact, the reductions in GDP due to costs of future GHG
regulation are notable in each of the scenarios. In the core scenario, U.S. GDP loss could be
about $250 billion in 2025 increasing to about $420 billion per year on average and a cumulative
loss of about $4 trillion between 2022 and 2031. The losses become larger in the long run as the
“mid-term” deep decarbonization target constrains the economy significantly. The U.S. economy
could lose about 6% of its GDP on average between 2034 and 2040 amounting to a loss of
greater than $2 trillion annually and a cumulative loss of $14 trillion.(5)
Availability of additional free offsets mitigate the overall impacts on the economy
Overall impact on the U.S. economy is mitigated by assumed free LULULCF offsets.
Cumulative GDP loss is reduced from about 1.1% to about 0.8% if high estimates for
sequestration of GHGs due to changes in land use and forestry are available. Having additional
offsets reduces the impacts on GDP by about 30% in 2025, and 20% in the medium to long term,
respectively. The impact even with high offsets amounts to about $180 billion in 2025, $330
billion in the medium term and $1.8 trillion in the long term. The range of GDP impact under
the different sequestration levels is shown in the figure below with the height of the bars
representing the range of impacts from high to low sequestration.
1 2016 Second Biennial Report of the United States of America under the UNFCCC, The U.S. Department of State,
2016.
2 United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, The White House, November 2016.
https://unfccc.int/files/focus/long-term_strategies/application/pdf/us_mid_century_strategy.pdf
3 The study results only reflect the least cost approach to meet emission reduction targets. It does not take into
account potential benefits from avoided emissions. The study results are not a benefit-cost analysis of climate
change. The long run, year 2040, impacts which are representative of the Obama Administration’s long term
emissions goal of an 80% reduction by 2050 are subject to a great deal of uncertainties about the future. The
model does not take into consideration yet to be developed technologies that might influence the long term cost.
The impacts estimated are based on current technology costs and availability assumed in our model.
4 The values are denominated in 2015 dollar unless mentioned otherwise.
5 The average impacts are represented as simple averages between years 2022 and 2031 and years 2034 and 2040 to
represent a short/medium and long term impacts of the policy, respectively. All impacts are estimated relative to
the baseline which is absent of the GHG policy
Genghis Kush
Active member
Us military defense budget =
827 billion
divided by
300 million =
$2757 per person if everyone payed taxes.
827 billion
divided by
300 million =
$2757 per person if everyone payed taxes.
Genghis Kush
Active member
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170602112819.htm
Antarctic ice rift close to calving, after growing 17km in 6 days, latest data from ice shelf shows
Date:
June 2, 2017
Source:
Swansea University
Summary:
The rift in the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica has grown by 17km in the last few days and is now only 13km from the ice front, indicating that calving of an iceberg is probably very close, researchers revealed after studying satellite data. The rift is likely to lead to one of the largest icebergs ever recorded.
The rift in the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica has grown by 17km in the last few days and is now only 13km from the ice front, indicating that calving of an iceberg is probably very close, Swansea University researchers revealed after studying the latest satellite data.
The rift in Larsen C is likely to lead to one of the largest icebergs ever recorded. It is being monitored by researchers from the UK's Project Midas, led by Swansea University.
Professor Adrian Luckman of Swansea University College of Science, head of Project Midas, described the latest findings:
"In the largest jump since January, the rift in the Larsen C Ice Shelf has grown an additional 17 km (11 miles) between May 25 and May 31 2017. This has moved the rift tip to within 13 km (8 miles) of breaking all the way through to the ice front, producing one of the largest ever recorded icebergs.
The rift tip appears also to have turned significantly towards the ice front, indicating that the time of calving is probably very close.
The rift has now fully breached the zone of soft 'suture' ice originating at the Cole Peninsula and there appears to be very little to prevent the iceberg from breaking away completely."
Researchers say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up.
Larsen C is approximately 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.
Professor Luckman added, "When it calves, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10% of its area to leave the ice front at its most retreated position ever recorded; this event will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula.
We have previously shown that the new configuration will be less stable than it was prior to the rift, and that Larsen C may eventually follow the example of its neighbour Larsen B, which disintegrated in 2002 following a similar rift-induced calving event.
The MIDAS Project will continue to monitor the development of the rift and assess its ongoing impact on the ice shelf. Further updates will be available on our blog (projectmidas.org),and on our Twitter feed"
The team say they have no evidence to link the growth of this rift, and the eventual calving, to climate change. However, it is widely accepted that warming ocean and atmospheric temperatures have been a factor in earlier disintegrations of ice shelves elsewhere on the Antarctic Peninsula, most notably Larsen A (1995) and Larsen B (2002).
They point out that this is one of the fastest warming places on Earth, a feature which will certainly not have hindered the development of the rift in Larsen C.
Antarctic ice rift close to calving, after growing 17km in 6 days, latest data from ice shelf shows
Date:
June 2, 2017
Source:
Swansea University
Summary:
The rift in the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica has grown by 17km in the last few days and is now only 13km from the ice front, indicating that calving of an iceberg is probably very close, researchers revealed after studying satellite data. The rift is likely to lead to one of the largest icebergs ever recorded.
The rift in the Larsen C ice shelf in Antarctica has grown by 17km in the last few days and is now only 13km from the ice front, indicating that calving of an iceberg is probably very close, Swansea University researchers revealed after studying the latest satellite data.
The rift in Larsen C is likely to lead to one of the largest icebergs ever recorded. It is being monitored by researchers from the UK's Project Midas, led by Swansea University.
Professor Adrian Luckman of Swansea University College of Science, head of Project Midas, described the latest findings:
"In the largest jump since January, the rift in the Larsen C Ice Shelf has grown an additional 17 km (11 miles) between May 25 and May 31 2017. This has moved the rift tip to within 13 km (8 miles) of breaking all the way through to the ice front, producing one of the largest ever recorded icebergs.
The rift tip appears also to have turned significantly towards the ice front, indicating that the time of calving is probably very close.
The rift has now fully breached the zone of soft 'suture' ice originating at the Cole Peninsula and there appears to be very little to prevent the iceberg from breaking away completely."
Researchers say the loss of a piece a quarter of the size of Wales will leave the whole shelf vulnerable to future break-up.
Larsen C is approximately 350m thick and floats on the seas at the edge of West Antarctica, holding back the flow of glaciers that feed into it.
Professor Luckman added, "When it calves, the Larsen C Ice Shelf will lose more than 10% of its area to leave the ice front at its most retreated position ever recorded; this event will fundamentally change the landscape of the Antarctic Peninsula.
We have previously shown that the new configuration will be less stable than it was prior to the rift, and that Larsen C may eventually follow the example of its neighbour Larsen B, which disintegrated in 2002 following a similar rift-induced calving event.
The MIDAS Project will continue to monitor the development of the rift and assess its ongoing impact on the ice shelf. Further updates will be available on our blog (projectmidas.org),and on our Twitter feed"
The team say they have no evidence to link the growth of this rift, and the eventual calving, to climate change. However, it is widely accepted that warming ocean and atmospheric temperatures have been a factor in earlier disintegrations of ice shelves elsewhere on the Antarctic Peninsula, most notably Larsen A (1995) and Larsen B (2002).
They point out that this is one of the fastest warming places on Earth, a feature which will certainly not have hindered the development of the rift in Larsen C.
!
Real science on CO2 and global warming..
http://newstarget.com/2017-06-02-carbon-dioxide-real-science-co2-cbd-thc-curcumin-nutrients.html
http://newstarget.com/2017-06-02-carbon-dioxide-real-science-co2-cbd-thc-curcumin-nutrients.html
So much for "global warming". Ice & snow coverage is WAY ABOVE average for April 2017
So much for "global warming". Ice & snow coverage is WAY ABOVE average for April 2017
The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during April was 31.17 million square km (12.03 million square miles), 950,000 square km (360,000 square miles) above the 1981-2010 average. This was the 16th largest Northern Hemisphere SCE in the 51-year period of record and largest since 2013.
During April, the North American SCE was 540,000 square km (210,000 square miles) above the 1981-2010 average ? the 21st largest on record and largest since 2014. An active storm pattern across the west coast of North America, a late-month storm in the High Plains of the U.S. and lingering snow on the ground from earlier in the season contributed to the above-average snow cover during the month. Above-average snow cover was observed in the Canadian and U.S. Rockies and the Great Lakes. Below-average snow cover was observed in parts of the U.S. Northern Plains and Rockies extending into the southern Canadian Prairies.
The Eurasian April SCE was 17.59 million square km (6.79 million square miles), 420,000 square km (160,000 square miles) above average. This ranked as the 21st largest April SCE for Eurasia and largest since 2013. Above-average snow cover was observed across western Russia and central China. Below-average snow cover was observed for northeastern China and the Alps.
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201704
So much for "global warming". Ice & snow coverage is WAY ABOVE average for April 2017
The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent (SCE) during April was 31.17 million square km (12.03 million square miles), 950,000 square km (360,000 square miles) above the 1981-2010 average. This was the 16th largest Northern Hemisphere SCE in the 51-year period of record and largest since 2013.
During April, the North American SCE was 540,000 square km (210,000 square miles) above the 1981-2010 average ? the 21st largest on record and largest since 2014. An active storm pattern across the west coast of North America, a late-month storm in the High Plains of the U.S. and lingering snow on the ground from earlier in the season contributed to the above-average snow cover during the month. Above-average snow cover was observed in the Canadian and U.S. Rockies and the Great Lakes. Below-average snow cover was observed in parts of the U.S. Northern Plains and Rockies extending into the southern Canadian Prairies.
The Eurasian April SCE was 17.59 million square km (6.79 million square miles), 420,000 square km (160,000 square miles) above average. This ranked as the 21st largest April SCE for Eurasia and largest since 2013. Above-average snow cover was observed across western Russia and central China. Below-average snow cover was observed for northeastern China and the Alps.
Source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/201704
Genghis Kush
Active member
as the climate changes,
some areas will receive greater amounts of precipitation while others will receive less.
Floods and droughts are most important issues people face concerning climate change.
some areas will receive greater amounts of precipitation while others will receive less.
Floods and droughts are most important issues people face concerning climate change.
LOL...dude, isn't "as the climate changes" really a thing called "weather" (aka 4 seasons). You know, hot in summer, cold in winter.
Whereas you must admit...the thing you call "climate change" is really a movement to redistribute wealth--with a goodly amount lining the pockets of the elites. You know those with daily carbon footprints that are greater than what us "average folks" consume in 1 year.
Genghis Kush
Active member
Weather
NOUN
1. The state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
‘if the weather's good we can go for a walk’
Climate
NOUN
1The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
‘our cold, wet climate’
----------------------
NOUN
1. The state of the atmosphere at a particular place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc.
‘if the weather's good we can go for a walk’
Climate
NOUN
1The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
‘our cold, wet climate’
----------------------
interesting, but not the trend
many prior years of low snow and ice cover
if only climate was a straight line process, but then we'd not be arguing
it would be the proverbial open and shut case
GK because one refers to the short term and the other the long term,don't they still mean the same thing basically?You're playing word games.I wouldn't fault you if you dug deeply into your own pockets to re-distribute some of your treasure to the less fortunate in third world countries or the more fortunate in the west that perpetuate this money scheme.I just ask that you don't try digging into my own pockets.Believe me as a retired electrician I haven't accumulated what many do giving a two hour speech designed to elighten our less intelligent asses lol
Genghis Kush
Active member
different words, different meanings.
you no nothing of what I have given to others.
you no nothing of what I have given to others.
