After 30 years History has judged global-warming predictions

a reply to: Greven

WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”

It actually increased by more than 25% was 0.03 now 0.04 so thats a 33% increase.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: queenofswords

In 1978, the news media went rabid about global climate change. It was called something different back then 40 years ago. It was called global cooling and the onset of the next ice-age. They didn't get the hysteria and the traction they desired, so they dropped it after 8 years and in 1986 they started talking about global warming, greenhouse gases and the extinction level event coming. It was diametrically opposed to their original predictions, I guess they read the crystal ball wrong or upside down. More importantly, they needed time. Time to dumb down the kids in school and program them so in twenty more years, 2006 onwards, they'd have willing drones incapable of critical thought or questioning questionable authority.

Global warming, as defined by the agcc cult, is a ruse. A ruse to extract your hard earned dollars for what they like to call "equalization payments." What they really mean, is a way to extract more value from you and me to put into their own pockets. Global warming is not in any sense caused by people. We may help out +/- 0.1% on the grand scale of things. However, between the energy of the Sun, volcanoes and other natural events and the 200 million tons of dust from space our little planet collects every year, we ain't got next to nothing on changing anything. We aren't even a type 1 civilization and apparently their is a moderate number of dumbed down people willing to believe in the agcc cult, because a bunch of faux authority figures told them it was true.

So, to those that wish to believe in agcc theology based global warming, in that mysterious alternate reality where BS is truth, I say, whatever floats your boat. Just don't impact the rest of our reality with the agcc tax grab delusion.

Cheers - Dave

200,000,000 tons of dust ? so that's 0.39215686275 of a ton per square kilometre, ummm, no wonder we don't notice it, would that tonnage each year make our orbit slowly move away from the sun ? As the gas giants did ?

originally posted by: johnb
a reply to: Greven

WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”

It actually increased by more than 25% was 0.03 now 0.04 so thats a 33% increase.

Indeed.

Science has generally underestimated the effects of climate change.

Here you go, this study shows that the leaks and seapage at the gas and oil wells in the US have more impact on climate change than all the coal plants combined. That does not even consider the carbon given off by natural gas power plants.

They have been switching to natural gas fired power up here because they are supposed to be saving the world. It appears that most have been BSed into believing a lie again. I have been complaining about this trend because of all the fracking everywhere. www.sciencedaily.com...

This should have a thread of it's own, but I do not like starting threads very often.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle


Your post does not seem to make any sense.
The planet is warming. Like climatologists have said it would.

It's called weather, it goes in cycles. Cycles are determined by feedback correction times and primarily external influences and/or non-controllable global influences, like say volcanoes.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

It's called weather, it goes in cycles.

No. Weather is one thing, climate is something else.

Cycles are determined by feedback correction times and primarily external influences and/or non-controllable global influences, like say volcanoes.

The "cycles" (Milancovitch) say the planet should be cooling.

Volcanoes also tend to cool things down, unless they're really going nuts. Like with the Russian traps.

Can you explain why the current warming is not being primarily caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Can you elucidate on what cycles and/or non-controllable global influences are causing the warming trend?

a reply to: rickymouse

Here you go, this study shows that the leaks and seapage at the gas and oil wells in the US have more impact on climate change than all the coal plants combined.

It does not say that.

Doing something about methane leaks would be good. But that means regulation. Regulation is bad.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

a volcano or two produces more greenhouse gas than all of our vehicles over a 10-20 year period.

Source? But it isn't just vehicles that produce CO2. Is it?

How many active volcanoes worldwide, 250?

Has volcanic activity increased?

More co2, more plant growth.

Maybe. If the plants have enough water and nutrients. But of course, more plant growth means that there are no other problems involved with increased CO2 concentrations and the warming it causes.

You know how do to selective "research" :-) I don't think I need to hold your hand. As far as plants and other biologicals gobbling up co2, thee is no problem. Plants grow faster and larger, and in greater numbers. Moderate heating increases atmospheric water vapour creating more rain to feed more plants. More plants on the ground mean less soil erosion during the rains. More plants and biologicals sequestering carbon with a slightly higher temperature means a longer growing season, which means more food. Seems like a win-win.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Moderate heating increases atmospheric water vapour creating more rain to feed more plants.

That depends upon where the rain falls and doesn't. Doesn't it?

More plants and biologicals sequestering carbon with a slightly higher temperature means a longer growing season, which means more food.

So, the plants don't die? They don't drop their leaves? The carbon is sequestered forever? What are the seasonal bumps in this chart about, do you think?

Seems like a win-win.

Yeah. Rising sea levels. Decreasing ocean pH.

"Slightly higher temperature." You know that the concept has to do with average global temperatures, right?

originally posted by: pikestaff

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: queenofswords

In 1978, the news media went rabid about global climate change. It was called something different back then 40 years ago. It was called global cooling and the onset of the next ice-age. They didn't get the hysteria and the traction they desired, so they dropped it after 8 years and in 1986 they started talking about global warming, greenhouse gases and the extinction level event coming. It was diametrically opposed to their original predictions, I guess they read the crystal ball wrong or upside down. More importantly, they needed time. Time to dumb down the kids in school and program them so in twenty more years, 2006 onwards, they'd have willing drones incapable of critical thought or questioning questionable authority.

Global warming, as defined by the agcc cult, is a ruse. A ruse to extract your hard earned dollars for what they like to call "equalization payments." What they really mean, is a way to extract more value from you and me to put into their own pockets. Global warming is not in any sense caused by people. We may help out +/- 0.1% on the grand scale of things. However, between the energy of the Sun, volcanoes and other natural events and the 200 million tons of dust from space our little planet collects every year, we ain't got next to nothing on changing anything. We aren't even a type 1 civilization and apparently their is a moderate number of dumbed down people willing to believe in the agcc cult, because a bunch of faux authority figures told them it was true.

So, to those that wish to believe in agcc theology based global warming, in that mysterious alternate reality where BS is truth, I say, whatever floats your boat. Just don't impact the rest of our reality with the agcc tax grab delusion.

Cheers - Dave

200,000,000 tons of dust ? so that's 0.39215686275 of a ton per square kilometre, ummm, no wonder we don't notice it, would that tonnage each year make our orbit slowly move away from the sun ? As the gas giants did ?

I just looked up the numbers and btw, apparently it's increasing. We are supposedly beginning entry into a diffuse gas cloud. Who knows what will happen next?

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

I just looked up the numbers and btw, apparently it's increasing.

Can you provide a source?

We are supposedly beginning entry into a diffuse gas cloud.

We've been in that "gas cloud" for thousands of years. And by "gas cloud" you mean something less dense than interplanetary space.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

Here you go, this study shows that the leaks and seapage at the gas and oil wells in the US have more impact on climate change than all the coal plants combined.

It does not say that.

Doing something about methane leaks would be good. But that means regulation. Regulation is bad.

So, then what is this cut and paste sentence below from that article say?

"The climate impact of these leaks in 2015 was roughly the same as the climate impact of carbon dioxide emissions from all all U.S. coal-fired power plants operating in 2015, they found."

I kind of interpret that sentence to say what I said. That says leaks, it is not considering the carbon emissions from the gas fired plant itself from what I gather.

a reply to: rickymouse

So, then what is this cut and paste sentence below from that article say?

It does not say this:

Here you go, this study shows that the leaks and seapage at the gas and oil wells in the US have more impact on climate change than all the coal plants combined.

originally posted by: Lysergic
How will you get a tan then?

Microwaves?

originally posted by: Phage
Yeah. Maybe we'll be lucky and an asteroid will remove any concerns about CO2 production.

Or a series of massive volcano eruptions. Every time I see a volcano spewing tons of ash into the air I think to myself, "So much for my feeble attempts to reduce my carbon footprint."

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

So, then what is this cut and paste sentence below from that article say?

It does not say this:

Here you go, this study shows that the leaks and seapage at the gas and oil wells in the US have more impact on climate change than all the coal plants combined.

Ok, roughly the same, but remember, the carbon emmissions of the gas plants probably tip it over to make it worse than coal. I read some of the specs on the Italian made engines and generators they bought for here, for the first two years they had decent efficiency rating estimates, after that they started to drop efficiency faster. I do not think it was a wise move to put in gas generators here.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Any effect of ash on climate would be pretty short lived and localized.

However the sulfate emissions are another story (if they reach the stratosphere). Though relatively short lived as well, they affect a much greater area. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had a measurable effect on northern hemisphere temperatures that lasted about a year and a half. Made for really gorgeous sunsets too.
people.uwec.edu...

Crappy source.
This one is better.
earthobservatory.nasa.gov...