A look at the science behind climate change

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I'm not arguing whether climate has changed.

Climate always changes.

That's the issue.

Some do not accept the fact that climate is always changing regardless of human involvement.

If humans had never existed, then climate would still be changing. It is not static.

It cannot be reversed.

It will always be changing.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Working only from personal experience as an 'outdoor' tyoe, I assure that the climate has changed at least where I live.

Winter as as I knew it from childhood, has gone and been that way for some 30yrs now.
Winter snows/blizards are few and far between and last a very short time, generally only weeks a the most.
Rain does strange things like ran all day, but fades into the evening, returning next day at strength.
Nothing like the thunder storms we would expect as summer ends.

My puzzle is why? Normal inter-glacial weather?
Signs of an impending ice age return?
Result of a relatively short period of pollution greater the previous volcanic productivity?

But I do believe that a certain element is fomenting discord between camps and promoting change as a means to tax us even further. How much of any taxes raised would be actually used to make changes in carbon emissions?

a reply to: Tie No Bows!

Climate will always change.

It is hubris, arrogance on the part of man to even think that we can control climate.

a reply to: DBCowboy

If humans had never existed, then climate would still be changing. It is not static.

Agreed.

That's why I never argue that I know why the change happened.

But I can't discount science ether.
And your point about how data is collected is something I also agree with.

Personally I believe that change happens naturally but can be altered , reversed, or sped up by human actions.
I do not believe that we alter things in the degree that some do nor do I think we alone have caused these changes.

In the end I am much much more worried about the poison and pollution that we put out then I am about the climate changing.
Also I am not yet convinced that co2 is as bad for the planet as claimed. At this point I think we should be way more concerned with carbon monoxide than dioxide.
www.mayoclinic.org...

a reply to: dfnj2015

If you want to know what the people that are running the climate change initiatives think about it, here you go...

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

So from their own mouths... it really just has to do with taking over the world's economy and nothing at all to do really about the climate.

Link

Got it now?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Climate "changers" are as effective as old men yelling at clouds.

If you really want to do something that will cause an immediate impact to your locality, clean up pollution. It's not the same as climate, but it will improve your geographical area.

a reply to: Tie No Bows!

Taxes are not the answer.

In a capitalist system a business can always find a way to tie the taxes or fines into their business model.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The poison humans generate will always be more important to me.

Even if another ice age or heat wave happens history tells us that life will adapt.

But can humans adapt to no drinkable water ? No edible food that isn't full of our man made chemicals. Chemicals that don't naturally accrue.

Look at the air quality in china. Is that something the entire world could deal with if it was happening everywhere?

I said taxes wont work. Fines wont work. But something does need to be done. We need to somehow convince each other to be cleaner.

I think a better way of doing that is through conversation rather than force.
Because I'm also the type of person that would rather see humanity end then have our freedom of choice taken away.

We need to start with each other. And the children that will one day run our businesses. How many people have you known in your life that wasted and lived in trashy houses that they never cleaned? I've known to many people like that. And a lot of them were not poor. They just didn't care.
If you grow up with no one teaching you not to waste. Not caring about nature then you will be the type to build a factory that pours as much waste into that nature as you can get away with.

I don't want the government to force people to change. They should not have that kind of power over us. But something needs to be done about the pollution.

It is pathetic that we allowed planet earth to have a garbage patch in our oceans.
I could go on and on about how cities should be redesigned and our road systems.....not having a clean world pisses me off.

Sorry to be kinda off topic. Climate change and pollution I see as separate issues. They overlap in some areas but one doesn't need the other to exist.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

I'm a fisherman.

Love to fish.

I want clean water, healthy fish because I eat what I catch.

Nothing better than fresh caught trout from a clean steam.

How many of their predictions on climate came true so far?

NONE. And we no longer call it Global Warming.

Most people are easily taken by these charlatans because there are few of us who don't probabilities and statistics.

The data is not outside of the UNCERTAINTY limits, therefore it is meaningless from a reference point. Or another way to say it, is not reliable to make a prediction. The Last Ice age is not over and temps will have to rise again one day to be like it was before the Ice.

What Avg temp should Earth be set to anyone?

a reply to: scraedtosleep

The poisons indeed. That is my life's work to help improve both drinkable water and our breathable air. CO2 is not our enemy. The CO and SO2 not so much our friends. All of this spews from the Earth, and Earth will carry on long after we poison ourselves or create a dead end gene that ruins food crops.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: rickymouse

You are in the 3% then:

The 97% consensus on global warming

Are you a climate scientists? I'm just wondering where the authority of your credentials about speaking on the topic are coming from? Or are you just an amateur like me?

97% of who ?
I got it
Climatologists who believe in man made global warming (3% wanted to stay out of it)
Peer review
Who are their peers ?
Climatologists who believe in man made global warming

You are going to have to do better than that crap...

Denying ignorance
Why ?
It runs rampant

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: dfnj2015

If you want to know what the people that are running the climate change initiatives think about it, here you go...

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

So from their own mouths... it really just has to do with taking over the world's economy and nothing at all to do really about the climate.

Link

Got it now?

You got that right, it is all about making bucks and control freaks trying to gain power by taking away our power.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I was Blinded by Science Once back in the 80' 's , Now I am more Informed . Data Does Rule ...........

a reply to: DBCowboy

If humans had never existed, then climate would still be changing. It is not static.

Yes. Orbital and axial changes affect climate on very long terms. Changes in solar radiation change climate. Volcanic activity affects climate on both long and short terms, depending upon how long they persist.

Increasing CO2 concentrations also affect climate. They did when the Siberian Traps were erupting at the end of the Permian, for example.


So, what do you figure is causing the current and rapid change in global temperatures. Oh, never mind, you don't think the planet is getting warmer because none of the temperature models have it right. Right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy


So, what do you figure is causing the current and rapid change in global temperatures. Oh, never mind, you don't think the planet is getting warmer because none of the temperature models have it right. Right?

I don't know.

Is the planet warming faster than predictive models based on the cyclic nature of climate temp?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Is the planet warming faster than predictive models based on the cyclic nature of climate temp?

Based in the Milankovich cycles (those orbital and axial things), indeed so. In fact we should be seeing a slight and very slow cooling trend.
www.indiana.edu...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: DBCowboy

Is the planet warming faster than predictive models based on the cyclic nature of climate temp?

Based in the Milankovich cycles (those orbital and axial things), indeed so. In fact we should be seeing a slight and very slow cooling trend.
www.indiana.edu...

Predictive models are awesome until they're not predictive any more.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Predictive models are awesome until they're not predictive any more.

Precisely. Something seems to be mucking up the natural cycles. Models which take increasing CO2 concentrations into account seem to have a pretty good handle on things.


Whereas we have predictions like this, not so much:

“In 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark. With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.”

Don Easterbrook

a reply to: Phage

If you ignore the standard deviation and don't account for any error, it is terrifying.