California: Statewide ban on smoking at beaches

While we're not talking about climate change, you bring up a point that is repeated a lot. The reality is, volcanoes don't emit anywhere near as much CO2 as human activity, and the sulfur aerosols they also emit tend to offset it. In reality, volcanoes don't warm the climate, they cool it, and only short term. From the USGS (the whole page is worth a read, lot of good information there:

"...All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities."

volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

And you believe that? 😂

Oh please global warming is a pack of lies designed to get a sin tax. After the fiasco with the emails and falsified data they started calling Climate Change and more scientist are against it rather than believers. But then there is no money in truthful science grants. It has been proven over and over that the earth goes through changes every 22000 years or so via ice core pollen samples. When the Vikings discovered Greenland they named it that for a reason. Yep glaciers melt see the Great lakes region. The earth always goes through changes it is a big egg shaped ball spinning around the sun and as such is subject to variations on the suns surface. Yep rain patterns change the Sahara was once green and lush. Yep ocean current temps change see El Nino and La Nina. Now they are blaming Co2 what utter hog wash blaming all living animals for the so called earths demise. If true the cure for that is reduce the population from 7.5 billion to less than 500 million. Don't believe it the UN has officially designated October 31st as 7 Billion Day. So you don't believe in global depopulation well I don't believe in the global whether agenda. You can not support one without the other. YMMV

Well, this WASN'T a climate change discussion, but if you'd like it to be I'm happy to play along.

There's zero question that human population currently exceeds the long term carrying capacity of our society in its present form. No argument there.

Framing the discussion as "killing the earth" is silly. The earth is a rock with a series of liquid and solid interior layers; it's not alive. It supports life the way it does because it's the optimal distance from an optimal star for the kind of carbon- based life we're familiar with. Life being as adaptable as it is, there is no question that life on this planet will evolve to survive and probably thrive no matter what we do to the planet. The question isn't whether life *in general* survives, the question is more about us as a specific species, and more to the point, our modern civilization. Remember, everything about human civilization, from population center locations to the infrastructure and agriculture to support them, is based on the climate of the last few thousand years. A significant climate change disrupts EVERYTHING.

But... humans are adaptable too. We have, in the past, adapted to changing climates. The difference is, the past changes we've seen have been minor and were more gradual. Our current rate of change greatly exceeds anything our species has experienced. Yes, humans have seen ice ages come and go, but they've had hundreds of years to adapt to the changes, and the adaptation takes less time when it involves moving a band of hunter-gatherers vs. moving New York or London. This comic displays the data in a great way, but it's intentionally long. You have to click on the image and then scroll all the way down to present day. You can clearly see that not only is our present global average temperature higher than our species has ever seen, but the rate of increase since the late 1800s is completely different:


Regarding the conspiracy theory around "email-gate"... all I can say is this is the scandal that wasn't. There never was any falsification of data. There was one email that referenced a "trick" in data processing, and some folks took that to mean a dishonest process. If you read the entire email, it's clear that the "trick" referenced was a data smoothing technique that made it easier to recognize trends. There was nothing dishonest about it, nor did it involve any falsification. I'd recommend actually reading the emails in their entirety to understand this.

It's completely false to suggest more scientists are "against" the idea of ACC vs "believers". I'd challenge you to provide any data to support that assertion. In the first place, there is no "belief" in science, there is only conclusions supported by data. Secondly, consensus among publishing climate researchers has done nothing but steadily increase over the last 30 years. NOAA, NASA, the EPA, the Hadley Centre, Woods Hole, and many more global research organizations have this data publicly available.

The old saw about scientists perpetuating a falsehood for "grant money" couldn't be any funnier to anyone who's ever worked in academia. The reality is, you don't get grant money without verifiable, reproducible evidence of the phenomenon you want to study. And researchers are not wealthy, by any stretch. In fact, the best and maybe the only way to really succeed as a standout in a research field is to discover some new evidence that upends a widely accepted position.

In other words, if there were ACTUALLY any evidence denunking the concept of anthropogenic climate change, the last thing researchers would be doing is keeping it secret. They would in fact be tripping over each other to be the first to publish. Research is cutthroat; you ever read peer review remarks??

The reality is, current global circulation models are very good. We are seeing things happen now - like rapid flipping between El Nino and La Nina conditions - that even the researchers were skeptical of when the computer models first started predicting them. And yet... the models were correct, and this now happens with regularity, far faster than it ever did before.

I get that this is an emotional topic for some... but I do not understand WHY. It is not a political, philosophical or theological subject. It's atmospheric physics; it's simply based in data. Now I can see how any possible response to the situation could tread into those areas, but that's not the portion that I'm concerned with; that's someone else's problem. But the question of whether it's real or not... isn't even a question.

Sarcastic. I don't care, nothing I can do about it. Keep up the good work with the Chem trails! 👍😊

👍👍👌👌😜🤠

I'm an Expert on my own opinions too.

Well that's what I mean; it's always puzzled me that this is an emotional issue, or seen as a political one. Why? Why do some folks have an emotional need to ignore such a large body of evidence? It more than speaks for itself. Hell, I'd be pretty happy if anthropogenic climate change WASN'T a thing, but a huge body of evidence says otherwise.

Psycholime, that comic is funny and I understand the premise, but you have to understand that it's propaganda. Literally none of those supposed predictions are real. Some of them are based on what the IPCC calls "worst case" scenarios, which the atmospheric science community never did take seriously. The IPCC issues three types of forecasts: best case, most likely, and worst case. The worst case are serious outliers with only a little supporting evidence; they never were expected to be reality. But they make good headlines, so unfortunately the media likes to trumpet them. Some activist groups fail to understand this and run with them as well.

Local forecast vs climate: these are often compared, but are two entirely different issues. Consider:

I'm a target archer. If I shoot 100 arrows, 85% of them will score a 4 ring or better. BUT, I also have a nasty occasional habit of plucking a release, throwing an arrow right of target into the backstop. I do this on average a few times per 100 arrows.

So, if I asked you to predict my 4 ring or better score on my next 100 arrows, you'd be able to reasonably predict 85%, plus/minus a couple percent. That's climate.

If I asked you to predict which number shots I would pluck right off target.. that's local weather. Good luck . It can be done to an extent, but is much harder.

Which has nothing to do with smoking on California beaches. California is ahead of the rest of the planet in trying to rid itself of the human infestation.

Perhaps it would be wise to read the NPC15 by the IPCC and the rebuttal report by NIPCC before passing judgement on anyone. YOUR MILEAGE MAY Vary means you get to think whatever you want. As soon as Al Gore gives up his 22 room mansion on the beach that's uses 30 times the energy of the average home. Next to his yacht and private jet plane I promise to make my coffee using a solar stove and do without on cloudy days.

You don't say?    

I wonder if you can still have a camp fire at the beaches and state parks.

It's quite possible. Areas of Texas that were open pastures are now subdivisions as far as you can see. They have to be coming from the commie states.