Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-20-2022, 10:05 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,046 posts, read 16,995,362 times
Reputation: 30179

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Then what exactly is your point? You're experiencing weather at the extreme end of its natural range, and it will cycle back on it's own. ...That's not climate change, just natural weather cyclicity.

I bring up co2 because that's what the Warmunists focus on in their quest to change the weather. I don't see them suggesting building brick walls to divert the ocean currents.

I started the thread to point out that the basic tenet of the Warmists is that the climate is changing. There's no evidience of that, only normal variability of weather.
There were "coldistas" in the recent past. Here's a 1983 New York Times article on point, Earth Said To Be In 'Icehouse' (link) and (link). Excerpt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by New York Times
The Precambrian Era, more than 600 million years ago, and the Permian Period 250 million years ago were, like the present, ''aragonite'' epochs. The long intervening periods were presumably dominated by carbon dioxide. They coincided with worldwide formation of granite structures probably associated with intense volcanic activity and continental flooding.
That the atmosphere 50 million to 150 million years ago may have contained four times as much carbon dioxide as today is suggested by a computer simulation of global climate in that period by Dr. Eric Barron at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
The article does ascribe the warmings and coolings to CO2 fluctuations, but points out that earlier eras had far higher CO2 concentrations. Current advocacy for drastic lifestyle changes arises from alternative agendas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-20-2022, 02:06 PM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
Quote:
I started the thread to point out that the basic tenet of the Warmists is that the climate is changing. There's no evidience of that, only normal variability of weather
I think you should point out that this is your own theory. If thats not the case, please show us a peer reviewed scientific article that agrees with you..


Quote:
but points out that earlier eras had far higher CO2 concentrations. Current advocacy for drastic lifestyle changes arises from alternative agendas
Curious, was the info that CO2 was higher over 50 million years ago enough to convince you of the alternate agenda? Read any articles newer than 39 years old?.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 03:04 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,253 posts, read 5,126,001 times
Reputation: 17747
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
Can you find a scientific paper that concludes this matters? Or this just some question you made up?

.
See pp 50 & 51 for 32 references from the scientific literature for starters and draw your own conclusions. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uplo...imate-2021.pdf

...or do you need to be led by the ring in your nose by others?

Start by defining "climate change." .. A small change in a measurable parameter is not enough. Significant climate change must include a significant, irreversible change in a biome casused by changing weather averages...... I challenge you to find one that has occurred in the last, say, 1000 yrs....The only one I know of is the increasing cold that drove the Vikings out of Iceland & Greenland and the Anasazi out of their cliff dwellings-- a little over 1000 y/a-- and even that is just part of the natural cylce of things.

Now if you want to go back 12,000 y/a when temps increased over the course of just a few centuries by 20degF and sea levels increased at a rate of 300 mm/yr, not just 2mm/yr, then you've got climate change.

BTW-- because we still have permanent polar ice, we are still technically in the Ice Age, presumably approaching an interglacial period, when there will be no permnant polar ice, if we continue to warm...so what is "Normal"? Extensive glaciation? No permanent polar ice?..or something in between-- where we are now?...

Should we hope for Normal to be a permanently stable state, or a dynamic, constantly changing range of measurble quantities?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 06:35 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,046 posts, read 16,995,362 times
Reputation: 30179
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Should we hope for Normal to be a permanently stable state, or a dynamic, constantly changing range of measurble quantities?
When I was a child, a snowless winter would cause me similar angst. Even in 9th grade, 1971-2, the relative snowlessness bothered me. I thought it was an irreversible trend. That worry was terminated, with extreme prejudice, during 1977-8. Though I was in Ithaca at the time I saw Boston and NYC on TV, that late January and early February.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 07:22 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
GLM said this

Quote:
I started the thread to point out that the basic tenet of the Warmists is that the climate is changing. There's no evidience of that, only normal variability of weather.
I asked for a reference.. what did I get back.. LOL.. a list of the general references at the bottom of Ole Humlum's paper. Im supposed to read through all of those I guess because GLM didnt? And from Humlin LOL https://skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html

Since I guess you cant find an actual legitimate peer reviewed reference, lets just take a quick look at what the best and the brightest climate scientists say about this (IPCC) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...me_Low_Res.pdf

Quote:
Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming5
above
pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C
between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)
Quote:
Warming greater than the global annual average is being experienced in many land regions and seasons, including two to
three times higher in the Arctic. Warming is generally higher over land than over the ocean. (high confidence)
Its easy to find references backing up that we are causing the current warming - because the science supports this. Easy to find many more references but Im pretty sure someone who just needs to know that CO2 levels were higher 50 million years ago likely wont read any of them.

I dont pretend to think there is a good solution for the climate change that is happening but am positive that you folks who deny that we are causing it are getting played by the huge amount of $$$ the fossil fuel industry is investing in deceiving you. Who has the nose ring on?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 07:39 AM
 
572 posts, read 279,567 times
Reputation: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltcolorado View Post
GLM said this



I asked for a reference.. what did I get back.. LOL.. a list of the general references at the bottom of Ole Humlum's paper. Im supposed to read through all of those I guess because GLM didnt? And from Humlin LOL https://skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html

Since I guess you cant find an actual legitimate peer reviewed reference, lets just take a quick look at what the best and the brightest climate scientists say about this (IPCC) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...me_Low_Res.pdf





Its easy to find references backing up that we are causing the current warming - because the science supports this. Easy to find many more references but Im pretty sure someone who just needs to know that CO2 levels were higher 50 million years ago likely wont read any of them.

I dont pretend to think there is a good solution for the climate change that is happening but am positive that you folks who deny that we are causing it are getting played by the huge amount of $$$ the fossil fuel industry is investing in deceiving you. Who has the nose ring on?
And it's not just Humlum. The outfit that published him, The Global Warming Policy Foundation has its own set of problems. GWPF has now "rebranded" as Net Zero Watch.

Quote:
The GWPF, and some of its prominent members individually, have been characterized as practising climate change denial.[3][4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...icy_Foundation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 15,028,112 times
Reputation: 34871
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
Then what exactly is your point? You're experiencing weather at the extreme end of its natural range, and it will cycle back on it's own. ...That's not climate change, just natural weather cyclicity.

I bring up co2 because that's what the Warmunists focus on in their quest to change the weather. I don't see them suggesting building brick walls to divert the ocean currents.

I started the thread to point out that the basic tenet of the Warmists is that the climate is changing. There's no evidience of that, only normal variability of weather.
Warmunists? I thought this was supposed to be an adult discussion, not resorting to making up silly juvenile names.

I guess you think this video taken last week over Manitoba farmlands is evidence of normal variability of weather.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfKm7bs_Fnk

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 09:49 AM
 
1,105 posts, read 1,250,739 times
Reputation: 1710
All in the same thread..

From GLM

Quote:
OK OK I concede-- There IS GW and it IS caused by burning fossil fuels/co2.

Now the question becomes, So What?
Then again from GLM and in the same thread even

Quote:
I started the thread to point out that the basic tenet of the Warmists is that the climate is changing. There's no evidience of that, only normal variability of weather
Huh???

I will point out this again.. from here https://www.statista.com/statistics/...the%20industry

Quote:
During the 2017-2018 midterm election cycle, corporations, individuals, and trade groups in the fossil fuel industry spent $265,773,915 in lobbying and $93,392,002 in contributions to national-level candidates, parties, and outside groups, bringing the total spending by the industry to more than $359 million in two years. That’s nearly $500,000 per day
Fossil fuel industry spends around 100 million $$ every year just buying politicians. The cost to pay someone sort of like GLM to write those bogus articles for watts up with that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall fossil fuel industry denial marketing budget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 05:53 PM
 
572 posts, read 279,567 times
Reputation: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite View Post
Guido, I don't know why you keep on pushing the red herring CO2 in response to my posts about climate when you know that I'm not interested in CO2. I don't ever mention CO2, I never make reference to it and I don't care about how many ppm's it is in the atmosphere at any given time. Except for its influence on the oceans it's not important enough to me for my consideration. But the way you reference it so often even though nobody else has mentioned it, it's apparent that you think that CO2 in any amount in the atmosphere actually IS a very important contributor to climate change. I think it's pretty clear that you believe that CO2 should not be ignored in spite of the fact that you bring it up and talk about it just so you can tell others that they should ignore it. That's contradictory.

.
Just because I rarely agree with anything GLM says, doesn't mean you should be unconcerned about CO2 levels and decarbonization. There's a lot of money currently being invested in carbon capture and storage. Decarbonization is an important, likely essential, part of the mix to reach climate goals. CO2 ppm have increased by about 50% globally in the last 60 years. GLM is likely simply trying to divert.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2022, 07:18 PM
 
Location: Canada
14,735 posts, read 15,028,112 times
Reputation: 34871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck_Mulligan View Post
Just because I rarely agree with anything GLM says, doesn't mean you should be unconcerned about CO2 levels and decarbonization. There's a lot of money currently being invested in carbon capture and storage. Decarbonization is an important, likely essential, part of the mix to reach climate goals. CO2 ppm have increased by about 50% globally in the last 60 years. GLM is likely simply trying to divert.
Sigh. I know it's a diversion - it's a really old and often used diversion that gets brought out a lot.... for years and years. And it's not that I'm unconcerned about CO2, believe me when I say I have close up and personal experience with what kinds of harms too much of it is capable of.

It's just that I'm not interested in hearing more of the same old, same old stand-by diversion refrain repeated over and over and over again about CO2 and how many ppm are in the atmosphere today compared to times in the past thousands or millions of years ago when there was so much more of it in the atmosphere and the planet was warmer and yada yada yada ........ but there was not an over-population of 8 BILLION people on the planet then all polluting and competing for resources and exacerbating climate today, and there is so much more to consider about climate change besides only CO2.

I'm bored with CO2 and being told "it's only normal variability of weather" BS.

Frankly I'm far more interested about what's happening on and beneath the surfaces of the oceans instead of
CO2 in the atmosphere because it's the oceans that are the engines that drive the world, they are what create the changes in climates and have the most influence on what's happening in the atmosphere and on all life on Earth.

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top