None of us know all there is to know about the climate issue, we all still have questions of one type or another, mostly on the science side of the issue, but certainly some on the political side of it as well. Arguably, the more questions that are asked, the more everyone will find out about the issue, on whether the questions can be answered easily or after much deeper examination.
The New York Times wants to answer your questions. On March 21, they posted the following under the headline, “What Questions Do You Have About Climate Change?“
We know that climate change can be an overwhelming subject, and we want to break it down for you. …
Between now and Earth Day, April 22, we will answer as many questions as possible. Other questions may form the basis of future reporting, helping us decide what to dig into. …
The first two boxes at that NYT page first ask what you want to know, and then ask you to tell a little about yourself what why you are interested in this question, and then ask for your name, email address and where you live, with the assurance that your personal info without your permission.
It might be helpful if the NYT received more probing questions than those they are used to. The pertinent question here is whether they are prepared to answer YOUR questions.
Once upon a time Stalin would take a train and visit towns along the way. He would ask for peoples opinions. The train that followed Stalin’s train would pick up the people that did not give opinions he agreed with. They were sent to be re-educated or worse.
Very creepy!
How much do you trust NYT with your personal data?
I have a question somebody may feed to the New York Times. Suppose the US achieves
Net Zero in 2050. How much would that lover the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and would it have any effect on the climate?
My submitted question: “How do you account for the certainty of your conviction that CO2-emissions-caused climate change is a reality when it’s been known for 2-1/2 years that climate models have no predictive value …
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
… which in turn means that all the projections of a torrid future are physically meaningless?”
“No, you can’t point to this paper, Nick Stokes has decreed it to be wrong…”
I have questions, NYT.
Why is the world (except Russia, China and India) spending so much money using climate models which, to date, have failed to predict?
Are Wind & Solar the biggest waste of money ever?
Why isn’t everyone on board with nuclear power generation which will provide the energy for civilization whether the climate warms, cools or stays the same?
I can’t think of one thing I would want answered by the New York Times. They are a joke.
What temperature range is ideal for the planet?
An even more pertinent question to NYT. Are you even prepared to read my question(s)? before you apply your usual idiot habits of projection to it to conclude it doesn’t need answering because NTY staffers applied their considerable woke telepathic skills to conclude the questioner is: Brexiteer, antivax, pro-Putin, Fascist, Trumpist, Racist, transphobic, or whatever they feel like projecting next.
My Question would be why was the IPCC set up with the sole purpose of finding Man Made Global Warming and nothing else not allowed to look at natural warming cooling cycles not allowed to look at natural sources of CO2?
James Bull
That is indeed true. From the archived pages of the IPCC itself,
Change the words there of “climate related data” and “climate change” to “ghost population data” and “ghost proliferation,” and it immediately becomes obvious to how ludicrous the IPCC’s mission statement was back then. Show the altered version of that statement to any ordinary person on the street and one of the first things they’ll say is “don’t tell me that we need to adapt to or mitigate the rising numbers of human-induced ghosts until you prove ghosts exist in the first place!!”
This was because it is a political organisation not a scientific one.
A true science body should look at all scenarios.
I’d ask, “Why do our children still know what snow is?”
And foxes want to answer your questions about henhouses.
what’s the Earth’s ideal temperature and how do you know? show your work
if ECS is less than two, does the total effort wasted on cooling, coerced and voluntary, amount to tens of trillions of dollars or only trillions?
which shell is the ball under?
If I want answers to my “climate change questions”, the last place I would go to get answers is the New York Times.
Why is human climate change a potential failed theory?
Answer
Cooling between 1940’s and 1970’s despite continuous rising C02 levels.
Why no warming between 1940’s and 1970’s?
Answer
Sunshine levels were declining and global clouds were increasing.
Why warming between 1980’s and 2000’s?
Sunshine levels were increasing and global clouds declining.
What fits this cycle of cooling and warming?
Answer
AMO
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo
Why is the Arctic sea ice declining but not sea ice around the Antarctic?
The ocean current (AMOC) that influences the AMO and the warmer phase melts more sea ice in the Arctic and the cooler phase reduces energy reaching the Arctic ocean, causing more sea ice.
Which one fits changes in temperatures since the 1940’s, CO2 or AMO and global cloud levels?
AMO and global cloud levels.
Can the AMO and global cloud levels be responsible for the range in temperature changes seen?
Answer
Yes
Only a few % change is easily enough to show the warming that has occurred in the oceans and the atmosphere, with increased sunshine hours warming the surface.
How about, “What is the second law of thermodynamics and does it explain the downward trend in the strongest (EF4 & 5) tornadoes?”