WH projects $1 trillion deficit for 2019

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If you provide the actual predictions by scientists and sources you meant I will reengage"

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...s-didnt-happen

https://thefederalist.com/2015/04/24...t-predictions/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...e-predictions/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...lly-everything

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-...edictions.html

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...d-did-not-end/

I can go on and on...

"We are not in uncharted territory in that there have been warm periods, with different causes"

The hell we aren't. We've never had this much of the world become industrialized, using fossil fuels at this pace in these amounts. Because that has never happened before, we don't know what the effects will be. It's not very complicated.

Solar panels - we've had an awful lot of dead birds thanks to the panels (thy keep nesting under there and then cook), and I've read that the panels are a huge mess to dispose of when they no longer function. So is it a net benefit to mother earth? I don't know. Again, the greenies didn't quite get it right, and that's a LOT simpler than trying to predict climate change impacts across all the complicated ecosystems on our planet.

Thanks.
I looked at them, one looks like a duplicate in part. Most are taking predictions with no date or time in them, and saying ‘wrong’ when really, the implications of the original source is probably later this century....

Were some of the crazy predictions made in the 70’s a bit dramatic (centered around the earth day origin), sure. Does that mean we should ignore everything since then, nope.

I read your links, read the ones I posted, watch the model clip.

The first one, Cato said we need to have it dealt with it by now (2000, 2012) meaning, reducing CO2. Not a prediction that by 2019 Philadelphia would be ocean front. The prediction mentioned was 2080 or something similar

The second was broader on environmental issues, not really climate change.

Watts list covers things with no time mentioned in many, only in the future, except a few at 2030, 2050 and 2080. How can they be ‘wrong’ in the future.

The new American claim that temperature has not risen since 1996 has been debunked. Do some reading on skeptical science, it has some good explanations in a reasonable way.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...ed-in-1998.htm

Humans are free list I don’t have time to deal with, and would have to pull a few sources, as I am not up on things like tornado predictions, but #1 is flat out wrong, sea level is rising, and that rate of rise has accelerated in the last few decades. Tide gauge records and satellite altimeter data shows this. A colleague’s work with his grad students suggests locally, this is the highest rate in 3,300 years at least, based on studies of past sea level in marshes. The one on temperature being flat is also wrong, see above.


You are right, we are in uncharted territory for the rate of industrialization and CO2 emissions. There are also times in the geologic past, due to other processes/reasons, CO2 was higher. At those times, sea level was much higher than present and the temperature was much warmer. As you are wont to say, try making that wrong

As far as solar panels, all energy production has consequences. All. I am waiting and hoping for solar shingles!

Good night Jim.
Sorry for derailing the thread on the deficit....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Sorry for derailing the thread on the deficit....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you have a fabulous brain

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Thanks.
I looked at them, one looks like a duplicate in part. Most are taking predictions with no date or time in them, and saying ‘wrong’ when really, the implications of the original source is probably later this century....

Were some of the crazy predictions made in the 70’s a bit dramatic (centered around the earth day origin), sure. Does that mean we should ignore everything since then, nope.

I read your links, read the ones I posted, watch the model clip.

The first one, Cato said we need to have it dealt with it by now (2000, 2012) meaning, reducing CO2. Not a prediction that by 2019 Philadelphia would be ocean front. The prediction mentioned was 2080 or something similar

The second was broader on environmental issues, not really climate change.

Watts list covers things with no time mentioned in many, only in the future, except a few at 2030, 2050 and 2080. How can they be ‘wrong’ in the future.

The new American claim that temperature has not risen since 1996 has been debunked. Do some reading on skeptical science, it has some good explanations in a reasonable way.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-...ed-in-1998.htm

Humans are free list I don’t have time to deal with, and would have to pull a few sources, as I am not up on things like tornado predictions, but #1 is flat out wrong, sea level is rising, and that rate of rise has accelerated in the last few decades. Tide gauge records and satellite altimeter data shows this. A colleague’s work with his grad students suggests locally, this is the highest rate in 3,300 years at least, based on studies of past sea level in marshes. The one on temperature being flat is also wrong, see above.


You are right, we are in uncharted territory for the rate of industrialization and CO2 emissions. There are also times in the geologic past, due to other processes/reasons, CO2 was higher. At those times, sea level was much higher than present and the temperature was much warmer. As you are wont to say, try making that wrong

As far as solar panels, all energy production has consequences. All. I am waiting and hoping for solar shingles!

Good night Jim.
Sorry for derailing the thread on the deficit....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bry, you say we produced more carbon in the past, i cant disprove that. but we don’t know what it means, or what the effect of current conditions will be. because current conditions are, as you conceded, unique.

i am completely persuadeable on this issue, i’ll go wherever science, not political zealots, take me. i’m not any kind of science denier, but i’m not clinging to an ideology either.

are there any problems in the world
today, for which the solution, isn’t to give liberals more power?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device