out of curiosity, are we 100% sure man is responsible for climate change?

originally posted by: network dude
I ask this as in the recent past, there was some ambiguity. it wasn't 100%, but they were pretty sure.
So when we make policy, is it really a good idea to make policy based on an unknown variable? The climate is a complex thing. The Sun, the moon, the oceans, the wind, the tectonic plates, animal migratory patterns, all could have either a small or a large effect on the climate.

We are coming out of an ice age. Or as our government states, we are still in one.

Like all the others, the most recent ice age brought a series of glacial advances and retreats. In fact, we are technically still in an ice age.

link to climate.gov

And if you look at the map in the link, it shows where the ice was at the peak of the last ice age. If you notice the details, you may see that the land mass was greater as well, and when the ice sheets melted, the ocean level raised. All this happened, without man's influence. knowing that, and understanding that there could even be factors to this that we never even thought of, can we say with total certainty that we completely understand MAN is responsible for the current warming?

the answer is no. no matter what people scream at you. we arnt even that warm when compared to the historical record. we are still in an ice age

a reply to: network dude

how much heat has just the hawaiian volcanos spewed in the past 40 years,
how about the thousands of others around the world?
last massive underwater volcanic explosion, tonga? in january-feb. 2023
or, wildfires?

according to sumerian legend, the last time planet nibiru came around
caused the great floods, and next time may tear earth apart

(calamity/birth pangs from bible, earthquake like no other,
new heaven and earth )

but yeah,..... it was US

a reply to: network dude

Hey man, it's time to leave this ATS place and find yourself again.

Addiction can be all encompassing. Leave. NOW.

a reply to: quintessentone

A meteor slammed into the North American ice cap around 12,500 years ago and caused arguably the most devastating flood in recorded history. That's right, That Flood. Did man have anything to do with that? Did we cause the last Ice age? When Krakatoa blew its top and changed the global climate, did we do that too? The sun is the driving force behind climate change, behind that its meteors and volcanoes.

originally posted by: inspector42
a reply to: quintessentone

A meteor slammed into the North American ice cap around 12,500 years ago and caused arguably the most devastating flood in recorded history. That's right, That Flood. Did man have anything to do with that? Did we cause the last Ice age? When Krakatoa blew its top and changed the global climate, did we do that too? The sun is the driving force behind climate change, behind that its meteors and volcanoes.

People died every day long before we invented guns

Does that mean guns cannot kill people?

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Non sequitur statement.

originally posted by: inspector42
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Non sequitur statement.

Exactly. That's the point.

The argument that climate changed in the past, without human involvement, therefore climate change today cannot be due to human activities, is a non sequitur.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: inspector42
a reply to: quintessentone

A meteor slammed into the North American ice cap around 12,500 years ago and caused arguably the most devastating flood in recorded history. That's right, That Flood. Did man have anything to do with that? Did we cause the last Ice age? When Krakatoa blew its top and changed the global climate, did we do that too? The sun is the driving force behind climate change, behind that its meteors and volcanoes.

People died every day long before we invented guns

Does that mean guns cannot kill people?

yes. 100%. A gun has never in the history of Earth, killed anyone. People have used guns as a weapon to kill other people.

A simple test to prove the albido effect and urban heat sink problem is to walk barefoot on tarmac then try walking barefoot on grass, mud, sand, rocks (natural materials) etc..and compare which feels hotter.

We're certainly not the sole cause of global warming and climatologists have to study the past fluctuations and cycles before they can graduate and have to write essays on things like 'Is the planet actually warming or is it stable and having more numerous and far more accurate sensors giving a false impression clmate change is happening' so studies already factor in all these effects.

The problems come in when politicians abuse the science and just use it as a source of tax revenue while doing nothing to adress the core issues and ignoring the fact most 'recycling' ends up being shipped to china, mixed with toxic waste and made into contaminated products that are sold to other countries.

UK recycling mafia illegally dump one million tonnes of waste in Northern Ireland - The massive crime scandal behind UK's rubbish www.theguardian.com...

Police bust massive mafia recycling ring making toxic shoes in China


The mafia control a lot of recycling here in Europe and I think it's the same in the US.

a reply to: bastion

the increasing amounts of blacktop coupled with the increasing amounts of solar panels, all capturing and radiating heat could make up for a good bit of the current warming, until it's studied, and documented, we won't know, and have to guess.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: bastion

the increasing amounts of blacktop coupled with the increasing amounts of solar panels, all capturing and radiating heat could make up for a good bit of the current warming, until it's studied, and documented, we won't know, and have to guess.

Very good point that needs to be studied.

I have no proof but I personally believe that the urban heat sink is a far bigger contributor to ckimate change than car emmisions and the like. There's constantly a 5c - 10c (41f - 50f) difference between inner cities and surrounding countryside which is a huge difference in thermal energy.

It could easilly be dramatically reduced by using the far lighter tarmacs available or the solar roads that generate energy but politicians are more con

If they are so uninsurable then why do all the elites get to buy ocean front properties up and down the east coast of the United States? Dan Peña should be someone you listen to, or try to have a chat with concerning “Climate Change”. It is a scam to steal money from the gullible so that the wealthy can have more than you, then shame you for trying to live a first world life. a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I am really sick of seeing someone try to equate a firearm to be the same as a natural disaster, or worse, something that has a predatory nature all by itself. There is a website where a guy has a camera set up on a firearm, and has a clock next to it showing how many days / years that it has been without a gun killing someone.

What astounds me is non gun owners trying to screech about how guns are bad, and yet cops are bad when they shoot a criminal trying to kill them.

I love how schizophrenic in their thinking some people are. a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: bastion

the increasing amounts of blacktop coupled with the increasing amounts of solar panels, all capturing and radiating heat could make up for a good bit of the current warming, until it's studied, and documented, we won't know, and have to guess.

Most of the warming is in the oceans That's why the current El Nino is such a concern - during El Ninos more of that heat is released from the oceans into the atmosphere.

2024 will be the warmest year on record

My main problem with that narrative is that there is no transparency in regards to data... It's either withheld or decimated through studies on studies on reports on studies.

Here are some facts that most dont dare to adress, very similar to the way data and interpretation of data was handled during Covid:

- Scientific institutions whose financial situation is based off the good will of private interest or public spending, are 100 % corruptible (mind you... I didn't say "corrupt").

- Scientists, who do not hold a position of leadership, risk their career by being honest, if honesty is not in the interest of the before mentioned. (leaders? Read the next)

- Scientific leaders did not get to be leaders based on merit, but primarily based on loyalty. If primarily based on merit, then they will be "asked" henceforth to be loyal before adhering to integrity.

There is only 1 way to obtain objective data in ANY area, and that is if the scientist is allowed to perform his or her tasks exclusively with the intention of arriving at objective data and that that data or their efforts are not influenced in ANY way.

I worked in polling once. It was a sparetime job while landing a job relevant to my field back then. We did polling for the government amongst others. You think polling questions are objective? Think again... There are so many ways to arrive at a desired result... and 99% of the time the result would be "We conclude we are doing well / have lived up to the demand of X sector".

Governments no longer are into accountability. End of story.

So what drives the data and reports? Well... private interests and political goals, even if that political goal is as simple as maintaining power for the sake of power. You think that left wing politicians appear humane because they care? You think right wing policitians appear in favour of individual rights and freedom for enterprise because they care?
They do this because it keeps them in business.

But hey... did we just forget who we worked for? To make sure that at the very least 50% of the population is kept safe and can afford a living, which again is a level that should not be determined by private interests.

Off a tangent there, to get back to climate change, all of the above taken into consideration;

The idea of "climate change" and the actions to prevent or even diminish it, cannot be solved by money, especially not if the data is corrupted by high level scientists who worry about wether they will get the grant next year.

Here are some things that should always be publicly and EASILY available in raw numbers:
- Location of meassuring equipment and reasoning why that is the best place.
- Date and time of meassurement
- Potential sources of data corruption (fx. wildfires, established seasonal variabilities)
- Who paid for the research paper (no... it's not good enough that it's hiding in paragraph somewhere in the report... front page)
- A fixed reference frame that goes further back. It's very convinient to only want to compare to the late 1800s.

What else? Bring it on... I'm missing something for sure that could be added.

See that's another thing, you can never argue against transparency. Transparency works so nicely that if someone takes the data and tries to corrupt it, everyone else has free access to the raw data and call them out. Arguing against transparency is only done if you have a desire to the control the communicated output and MISINFORM the public.

There are heatwaves yes... you know what, we have had the wettest july EVER here in Denmark. Before that we had a very hot June.

Which brings us to the next problem which lies with media and their coverage with all of this.
We have no objective media sources anymore. I don't care what you might believe.
Cherry picking here and there, instead of trying to look at the big picture. Again, bring the raw data.
Move away from being opinion deciders to being data reporters.

As long as things are like this, there can be no sane or rational debate about "climate change". And again... TAXING people does not make people spend less, do less, make the sun less irradiant or make the seas behave differently.

It's a human illness to think of ourselves as in any way being able to control anything on the planet in regards to nature, apart from spraying the clouds with various chemicals to make it rain etc.

Which by the way gotta make you question why they aren't doing that right now?

a reply to: network dude

its sure is possible given how often humans start forest fires

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: bastion

the increasing amounts of blacktop coupled with the increasing amounts of solar panels, all capturing and radiating heat could make up for a good bit of the current warming, until it's studied, and documented, we won't know, and have to guess.

Most of the warming is in the oceans

That's why the current El Nino is such a concern - during El Ninos more of that heat is released from the oceans into the atmosphere.

2024 will be the warmest year on record

And El nino was a natural occurrence for thousands of years until just recently, now I hear AGW is causing us to have the warmest year on record.

It's past comical for me. Give Klause all your belongings, eat some bugs, and keep preaching your religion, I'm going to stick with common sense on this one. And when the cooling cycle comes, I'll laugh bigley. Mostly because there will be dumbasses who believe that we will have been the cause for that as well.

originally posted by: network dude
And El nino was a natural occurrence for thousands of years until just recently, now I hear AGW is causing us to have the warmest year on record.

Aye, El Ninos have always happened. And they usually result in warmer temps globally.

As a consequence of global warming - due to human activity - though, we are experiencing the sort of global temps previously only associated during El Ninos, even when in the negative (La Nina, or cold) phase of ENSO. And when we then get El Nino, global temps are higher still.

In other words, El Nino = warmer than usual year; AGW = warmer than usual year; AGW + El Nino = record warm year.

I expect 2024 to be the warmest year on record, but the next few years to then be slightly cooler - until the next El Nino comes around again ....

a reply to: AndyMayhew

all the while, never once allowing logic to enter the chat. You are the best foot soldier in your cult.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

What do you think about the summer weather in the UK this year?

And you state that 2024 will be warmest ever.......let's wait and see.