Climate Change - Where shall I begin?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TurkeyGoose

The climate change agenda is just another way to introduce Marxism into our society.

Lol
So 8 billion people addicted to carbon based fuels has nothing to do with environmental problems ?

a reply to: Justoneman

I am wondering if you could help me answer a question. When I test software deployments I like using machines that have been "in the wild", machines that have been on the corporate network for some time instead of clean test VMs. Get real world results.

So my question is why do we compare CO2 data from ice core samples in the Arctic with data points from the Mauna Loa Observatory?

What is the Mauna Loa Observatory famous for? Prominence. MLO began continuously monitoring and collecting data related to climate change, atmospheric composition, and air quality in the 1950's. Today, the observatory is best known for its measurements of rising anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere.

Shouldn't we be collecting data points from the same location instead of using MLO data as the baseline to monitor change?

Always found it interesting when I read about a super earth found a reasonable distance away that was considered by science to be roughly 15 degrees warmer than earth, and more fertile.

While another side of science is freaking out over a percentage of a percentage point increase in temperature on earth.

Last random thought, why only go back to the late 1800's I know we have some smart people that have a pretty good idea of the temperature and co2 in the atmosphere a lot further back in time, yet they dont go back far at all to try and prove their climate fear mongering.

Could it be the further back you go the less scary the change looks?

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Always found it interesting when I read about a super earth found a reasonable distance away that was considered by science to be roughly 15 degrees warmer than earth, and more fertile.

While another side of science is freaking out over a percentage of a percentage point increase in temperature on earth.

Last random thought, why only go back to the late 1800's I know we have some smart people that have a pretty good idea of the temperature and co2 in the atmosphere a lot further back in time, yet they dont go back far at all to try and prove their climate fear mongering.

Could it be the further back you go the less scary the change looks?

A narrative is easier to make using a snapshot rather than showing all cumulative facts.

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

On the surface, it’s easy to debunk any kind of alarmism about climate change.

The data gathered seems to show the planet has warmed maybe 1 degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution with the increase in CO2 emissions being the only substantial change that could account for the increase.

This is hardly alarming, and even this statement can be shot down using statistics: it is impossible to gather enough temperature data to analyze temperature changes for the entire earth; and using scientific laws: adding CO2 would not increase the radiant energy of earth.

But I’m here to provide you with smoking gun for why there is a real reason to be alarmed by increasing CO2.

There is a glass barrier all around earth.

It protects us from deadly winds.

If you fill this container up with too much CO2, it will put too much pressure on the glass. It will crack, and the winds, as well as the full force of the electric currents from the sun, moon, stars, etc. will come flooding in, and destroy all life.

Being in a closed container is also the only plausible way CO2 would heat up the earth. Though it may not increase radiant energy, it would increase pressure.

originally posted by: Whiskermegistus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TurkeyGoose

The climate change agenda is just another way to introduce Marxism into our society.

Lol
So 8 billion people addicted to carbon based fuels has nothing to do with environmental problems ?

Those 8 billion and Fossil Fuel derived CO2 have little to do with climate change. The data say CO2 is not causal. Trying to fix imaginary climate problems will cause more environmental damage, yet.
Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All
by Michael Shellenberger

originally posted by: Kratos77
a reply to: Justoneman

I am wondering if you could help me answer a question. When I test software deployments I like using machines that have been "in the wild", machines that have been on the corporate network for some time instead of clean test VMs. Get real world results.

So my question is why do we compare CO2 data from ice core samples in the Arctic with data points from the Mauna Loa Observatory?

What is the Mauna Loa Observatory famous for? Prominence. MLO began continuously monitoring and collecting data related to climate change, atmospheric composition, and air quality in the 1950's. Today, the observatory is best known for its measurements of rising anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere.

Shouldn't we be collecting data points from the same location instead of using MLO data as the baseline to monitor change?

Well, it is not truly representative to use Mauna Loa for the whole worlds CO2 situation. Volcano's produce some CO2 also as they to burn things in the ground like coal and oil. As well as Sulfur and other noxious things that may cause wood to burn on the surface. To be on a volcano measuring CO2 is not a good idea for scientific pureness of the results. Somewhere like the middle of the Antarctic would be better representation of the "wild" than a populated island with a volcano.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Always found it interesting when I read about a super earth found a reasonable distance away that was considered by science to be roughly 15 degrees warmer than earth, and more fertile.

While another side of science is freaking out over a percentage of a percentage point increase in temperature on earth.

Last random thought, why only go back to the late 1800's I know we have some smart people that have a pretty good idea of the temperature and co2 in the atmosphere a lot further back in time, yet they dont go back far at all to try and prove their climate fear mongering.

Could it be the further back you go the less scary the change looks?

A narrative is easier to make using a snapshot rather than showing all cumulative facts.

Accurate as any could be. A narrative is what we are getting. I am sure you don't like the steam they are trying to pump up all our asses on this whole scam.

a reply to: TurkeyGoose

Glaciers

I always check this out every couple of years, the data could be minipulated who snows? I'm bad at spelling. I hars say that there as as many glaciers still on the plant as before Al ##@ing Gore..

a reply to: Islandparty

I do want to specify what this article says.

VERDICT
False and misleading. The number of glaciers on Earth in 1948 (Al Gore’s birth) is not known. A better indicator of climate change is studying glacier mass, which has reduced significantly over the 20th and 21st centuries.

Do we trust this or actually look at the science?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
skepticalscience.com...


Those who refute AGW are the ones with an agenda. Ask yourself who is least affected (personally) by flood, drought, famine, mass migration, food shortages, increased foot prices ..... And who has the most to gain by continuing to selling oil and coal.

Refuting a lie is what some of us are damned good at Andy.. AGW is a flat out lie, period.

Only in the same way the Earth is more than 4,000 years old and orbits the Sun is a flat out lie.


The science has been rigorously tested for over 150 years. This is not an agenda.

Denial of long standing science is the agenda. Don't be duped by the Elite.

The reports are here now for you to read on this thread and data to review in the links. It is a lie you will learn to see I suppose one day if you are not poking fun at it in sarcasm.

Been studying the subject for over 2 decades. Starting from a position of scepticism.

We do affect our habitat with our air pollution and water contamination. That does little to affect the Earth. The more soot pollution the lower the average temperature in places that burn huge amounts of Coal. Turned off the coal in places and the temp in those areas rose a bit. It is the Sun that decides how warm we are and man can only hide the Sun and hide from it too.

Whilst reducing some types of atmospheric pollution may indeed cause an increase in temp, soot itself actually causes warming: www.ccacoalition.org...

a reply to: AndyMayhew
Andy that last link there looks fancy. The data I know about says we have to take that carbon AND ALSO the SO2 pollutant that comes with burning, because SO2 is in with the carbon in the plumes. That absolutely does cause cooling. JUST Carbon in that study and nothing about the SO2 which becomes H2SO4 when a water molecule finds the SO2 molecule.

These people use statistics but they are misleading/lies whatever word works for you. We all know a volcano exploding cools the whole planet all by itself if it is like a Krakatau level event. That is the secret to understanding the lies being bandied about to keep this power play open for the NWO cabal.

I thought we were supposed to be in an ice age right now? Isn't that what the science said in the 70s?

It's ridiculous to think that humans are capable of understanding billions of years of planetary and universal evolution based on 100-150 years of temperature data.

About as ridiculous as not believing in ManBearPig.

Small video .

originally posted by: Elton


Real Climate Science has historical records that indicate we were in a global cooling period up to the point the data was 'adjusted'.

ChatGPT has admitted there is no global warming based on the data.

If we went by the 80s GW scare then today we would be about 2 to 4 degrees warmer, and that would have large areas and big coastal cities under water now.

Now for current news, the NW US had the 5th coldest April in recorded history, No. 4 was back in 85, so this was not an easy record to break.

originally posted by: rounda
I thought we were supposed to be in an ice age right now? Isn't that what the science said in the 70s?

No

At the time it was thought the current interglacial should only last 10,000 years (we now know better) but even so the science said AGW would prevent another ice age from happening.

Exxon knew that too (but they didn't tell anyone)

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: rounda
I thought we were supposed to be in an ice age right now? Isn't that what the science said in the 70s?

No

At the time it was thought the current interglacial should only last 10,000 years (we now know better) but even so the science said AGW would prevent another ice age from happening.

Exxon knew that too (but they didn't tell anyone)

www.theguardian.com...

The data showed an Ice age was coming and they said AGW......
here you go!

Mianstream news 1975

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: rounda
I thought we were supposed to be in an ice age right now? Isn't that what the science said in the 70s?

No

At the time it was thought the current interglacial should only last 10,000 years (we now know better) but even so the science said AGW would prevent another ice age from happening.

Exxon knew that too (but they didn't tell anyone)

www.theguardian.com...

The data showed an Ice age was coming and they said AGW......
here you go!

Mianstream news 1975

Your link says the opposite.

How prevalent then were worries about global warming? An examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature conducted by a group of researchers in 2008, covering the mid-1960s through the 1970s, revealed that papers warning of global warming outnumbered those projecting cooling by a factor of six. So climate change in the form of global warming was a widespread topic of concern during this era, and there was no consensus that the Earth would cool in the immediate future.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Since Climate Change believers are a religion my religion is non-belief. None of what they claim is true. Of course we damage the environment but we aren't causing a rise in Earths temperature.

We are killing everything with microplastics, glyphosate and wireless radiation however but let's worry about the conjectured possible future temperature shall we?

Quoted for the truth!

And I am very curious: Did NONE of the Climate Change disaster scientists learn what little old me learned in school? About that one natural thing that grows, that cleans our air?
Why the heck isn't their solution to just plant more of those?
Nope, lets build electric cars, that will do even more damage to our environment.
Brilliant!

Scot that was later the narrative changed to warming by CO2. There was no consensus of anything but what they tell you to believe and not what the data showed us, period. That started the whole mess of "fake news" and I am here to do my best to correct the lies. The cool down crowd is right, they were slammed and now the data is showing a chance for a dip in temps. You Scots should know it was way warmer on your island in recorded history. What gives you would not know this?


it is a cycle and the liars want to say it is us. We do ruin our drinking water and pollute the soil. If we fixed those things we are going to see huge improvements in the environmental health of the land. The Sun doesn't care what we do, it is going to Sun us. Some times too much, and sometimes too little. The cycle is about to cool according to Solar data and sunspot predictors. When the Sunspots slow down enough it might start back up with a real big bang too after this particular cycle. Maybe 10-20 years out a possible small Nova event is being predicted and the consequences would explain the whole whacky leadership world wide if they are in the know as they should be.

And Gwynne’s was no lone voice, at least in the popular press. Scores of similar articles, some with even more dire predictions of a “little ice age” to come, appeared during the 1970s in such mainstream publications as Time, Science Digest, The Los Angeles Times, Fortune, The Chicago Tribune, New York Magazine, The New York Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Popular Science, and National Geographic. A worldwide freeze proved irresistible to feature writers prowling for a sexy news peg. “The media are having a lot of fun with this situation,” observed climatologist J. Murray Mitchell.

So as I stated they started on the right track then,,, fake news... And Murray was part of the problem.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: rounda
I thought we were supposed to be in an ice age right now? Isn't that what the science said in the 70s?

No

At the time it was thought the current interglacial should only last 10,000 years (we now know better) but even so the science said AGW would prevent another ice age from happening.

Exxon knew that too (but they didn't tell anyone)

www.theguardian.com...

The data showed an Ice age was coming and they said AGW......
here you go!

Mianstream news 1975

Your link says the opposite.

How prevalent then were worries about global warming? An examination of peer-reviewed scientific literature conducted by a group of researchers in 2008, covering the mid-1960s through the 1970s, revealed that papers warning of global warming outnumbered those projecting cooling by a factor of six. So climate change in the form of global warming was a widespread topic of concern during this era, and there was no consensus that the Earth would cool in the immediate future.

[/quote

edit on 5-5-2023 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2023 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)