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.
Ok. How long has this long-term change been occurring? The poles and glaciers have been melting and receding for 10,000 years. The Industrial Age is maybe 100 years strong. Please explain.
Like you, I'm not a scientist, so I haven't studied climate science. I could start looking it up for you, but I'm too sleepy to. Why? Are you going to try to reason it all out without a degree in science?
Perhaps you missed the point. I am not arguing that the climate is not changing or that it is not getting warmer. I am arguing that the science has NOT shown that WE have anything to DO with it (relative to the actual causes) . . . nor do WE have any ability to DO anything about it. What we need to do is prepare to adapt to whatever changes are in the offing. I agree that pollution is a problem and we should focus on that . . . NOT on something that has little to no effect on the climate change we are experiencing. Such efforts are a waste of money and divert us from the real problems plaguing the planet.
No, I did not miss the point. I was addressing knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers like the following.
Quote:
Why people believe in global warming? Because they are idiots and don't want the world to know it so they try to hype their "knowledge" even though global warming is complete BS...
How much we have to do with it isn't exactly clear. I know we're not helping.
As I said, anything financed by oil companies, lobbies for oil companies, or funded by right wing extremist organizations, I will point out if I have the time. Lies are their 1st and last name. Do not even go there.
Same principle applies to global warming. Left wing environazi extremists funding research and paying for the results they want.
I think the liberal/conservative divide is manufactured by the media. I am more liberal than conservative . . . but as a scientist I have looked at the actual evidence. It is primarily dependent on climate models that have no established validity in predicting climate . We cannot accurately predict even regional climate phenomena like cloud cover (a major factor in the greenhouse models). . . let alone global. It seems the more we actually look at the real research into climate, past, present and future, the more we find that the hype we are seeing is media manufactured.
"The study determined the ‘natural equilibrium’ sea level for CO2 concentrations ranging between ice-age values of 180 parts per million and ice-free values of more than 1,000 parts per million."
And yet we have been told by the media that the current levels (< 400 parts per million) are the highest ever!
In other studies we have groups backing away from parts of the AGW theory, yet how much do we see of this in the mainstream media
"Global Warming Less Extreme Than Feared? New Estimates from a Norwegian Project On Climate Calculations"
"Ocean warming also appears to have stabilized somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise"
The predicted continual temperature rise is actually leveling off!
After Earth's mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has leveled off nearly completely. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilized somewhat . . . despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise."
Those of us who adhere to the scientific process would say that the above statement is counter to the postulated hypothesis that rising CO2 levels are the cause of the global ocean and atmospheric temperature rises. We are seeing CO2 continue to rise yet ocean and atmospheric temps have leveled off. To me this presents strong evidence that CO2 levels may not be the causative agent many have loudly proclaimed for the last two decades.
"A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.
This is an admission that we really do not understand the dynamics and interactions of the system we live in and are far from understanding it well enough to make accurate predictions.
UN report admits solar activity may play significant role in global warming
".... A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.
“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ..."
".... An estimate from NASA said that solar variations caused 25 percent of the 1.1 degree Fahrenheit warming that has been observed over the past century.
“Climate science has the problem of trying to explain why we are now in our 17th year without a significant warming trend. As a result, you are seeing many forecasts of warming for this century being ratcheted down,”...."
The melting ice caps are the most visually potent evidence of climate change . . . but they are subject to extreme fluctuations that we are only beginning to understand. This suggests that the natural causes of climate change are the more likely major forces driving climate change . . . NOT man-made activities and CO2 emissions.
Scientists have debated the causes of this warming, particularly in light of recent instrumental records of both atmospheric and oceanic warming from the region. As the atmosphere and ocean warm, so the ice sheet (holding an equivalent of 5 metres of global sea level rise, locked up in ice) becomes vulnerable to collapse.
Now research led by Cardiff University published in Nature Geoscience has used a unique 12,000 year long record from microscopic marine algae fossils to trace glacial ice entering the ocean along the western Antarctic Peninsula..........................
The study has also shown that this late Holocene atmospheric warming was cyclic (400-500 year long cycles) and linked to the increasing strength of the El Niño -- Southern Oscillation phenomenon (a climate pattern centred in the low latitude Pacific Ocean) demonstrating an equatorial influence on high latitude climate."
So we are finding new natural cycles in the antarctic Ice melts. Ones we did not know about till now.
"Dr Jennifer Pike, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences said: "Our research is helping to understand the past dynamic behaviour of the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet. The implications of our findings are that the modern observations of ocean-driven warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula need to be considered as part of a natural centennial timescale cycle of climate variability, and that in order to understand climate change along the Antarctic Peninsula, we need to understand the broader climate connections with the rest of the planet.""
"Multi-centenial" cycles and "natural centennial timescale cycle of climate variability"......we are finding multi-century cycles in the antarctic ice formation and melting process that were not even hinted at 10 to 20 years ago yet we have to act now to avert a "warming" trend that is barely a century old if you accept the worst case data sets. I am not averse to acknowledging that climate change is occurring . . . but the evidence that we are the cause or even a significant factor in it is not scientifically established, IMO. We should be focused on adapting to it . . . rather than futilely trying to do something about it. This does NOT have anything to do with pollution and other planet damaging activities which should be eliminated. But we are being distracted by this over-inflated view of our effect on GLOBAL processes. We are like the fleas on a Bull Mastiff arguing over how we can change where he is going.
So then how should we treat the environment then from this point forward out of curiosity?
The funny thing is when we skeptics actually provide the science we get one of two things.
crickets or some hysterical lazy CAGW believer screaming "EXXON"... not one word on the actual factual science.
heck, ive given science in this thread and a dozen others that comes from NOAA which is filled with CAGW believers that refutes their own claims. You think that matters? nope.
Got too much invested in the Trillion odd dollars the CAGW people have made on this nonsense.
on the subject of Exxon, it seems in the last 10 years some of the wack jobs have found potentailly 16 million dollars from them that went to some skeptical organizations. No actual proof the money was used to fund any particular research or communication on climate...But they are mum on the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS Exxon has spent on things like oil from algae, MILLIONS given to groups lik World Wildlife Fund and other pro-CAGW organizations. it is a big fat lie.
The funny thing which is completely lost on you... You sound EXACTLY like Saritaschihuahua except on the other side of the fence. Ideologues who deal in absolutes are amusing.
Oh and about trillions.... I guess it completely went over your head the mining companies and manufacturers make actual trillionS of dollars in the global economy. Certainly no deep pockets or vested interests there..... But please go on about the trillion odd dollars the CAGW people have made on this "nonsense".
This is a pollution problem . . . NOT a Climate Change problem. We definitely need to stop polluting our environment . . . but CO2 is a plant food . . . NOT a pollutant. Why do some here seem to have difficulty staying with the topic?
It has many uses, one of which is a greenhouse gas. The thing about pollution... our coal power plants and tail pipes don't just emit CO2, there is a wide range of emissions and even particulate matter. So cutting back on pollution as you say it also cuts back on CO2. Seems like a good way to hedge against this human caused climate change business....
I think the liberal/conservative divide is manufactured by the media. I am more liberal than conservative . . . but as a scientist I have looked at the actual evidence. It is primarily dependent on climate models that have no established validity in predicting climate . We cannot accurately predict even regional climate phenomena like cloud cover (a major factor in the greenhouse models). . . let alone global. It seems the more we actually look at the real research into climate, past, present and future, the more we find that the hype we are seeing is media manufactured.
"The study determined the ‘natural equilibrium’ sea level for CO2 concentrations ranging between ice-age values of 180 parts per million and ice-free values of more than 1,000 parts per million."
And yet we have been told by the media that the current levels (< 400 parts per million) are the highest ever!
In other studies we have groups backing away from parts of the AGW theory, yet how much do we see of this in the mainstream media
"Global Warming Less Extreme Than Feared? New Estimates from a Norwegian Project On Climate Calculations"
"Ocean warming also appears to have stabilized somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise"
The predicted continual temperature rise is actually leveling off!
After Earth's mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has leveled off nearly completely. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilized somewhat . . . despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise."
Those of us who adhere to the scientific process would say that the above statement is counter to the postulated hypothesis that rising CO2 levels are the cause of the global ocean and atmospheric temperature rises. We are seeing CO2 continue to rise yet ocean and atmospheric temps have leveled off. To me this presents strong evidence that CO2 levels may not be the causative agent many have loudly proclaimed for the last two decades.
"A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.
This is an admission that we really do not understand the dynamics and interactions of the system we live in and are far from understanding it well enough to make accurate predictions.
UN report admits solar activity may play significant role in global warming
".... A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.
“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ..."
".... An estimate from NASA said that solar variations caused 25 percent of the 1.1 degree Fahrenheit warming that has been observed over the past century.
“Climate science has the problem of trying to explain why we are now in our 17th year without a significant warming trend. As a result, you are seeing many forecasts of warming for this century being ratcheted down,”...."
The melting ice caps are the most visually potent evidence of climate change . . . but they are subject to extreme fluctuations that we are only beginning to understand. This suggests that the natural causes of climate change are the more likely major forces driving climate change . . . NOT man-made activities and CO2 emissions.
Scientists have debated the causes of this warming, particularly in light of recent instrumental records of both atmospheric and oceanic warming from the region. As the atmosphere and ocean warm, so the ice sheet (holding an equivalent of 5 metres of global sea level rise, locked up in ice) becomes vulnerable to collapse.
Now research led by Cardiff University published in Nature Geoscience has used a unique 12,000 year long record from microscopic marine algae fossils to trace glacial ice entering the ocean along the western Antarctic Peninsula..........................
The study has also shown that this late Holocene atmospheric warming was cyclic (400-500 year long cycles) and linked to the increasing strength of the El Niño -- Southern Oscillation phenomenon (a climate pattern centred in the low latitude Pacific Ocean) demonstrating an equatorial influence on high latitude climate."
So we are finding new natural cycles in the antarctic Ice melts. Ones we did not know about till now.
"Dr Jennifer Pike, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences said: "Our research is helping to understand the past dynamic behaviour of the Antarctic Peninsula Ice Sheet. The implications of our findings are that the modern observations of ocean-driven warming along the western Antarctic Peninsula need to be considered as part of a natural centennial timescale cycle of climate variability, and that in order to understand climate change along the Antarctic Peninsula, we need to understand the broader climate connections with the rest of the planet.""
"Multi-centenial" cycles and "natural centennial timescale cycle of climate variability"......we are finding multi-century cycles in the antarctic ice formation and melting process that were not even hinted at 10 to 20 years ago yet we have to act now to avert a "warming" trend that is barely a century old if you accept the worst case data sets. I am not averse to acknowledging that climate change is occurring . . . but the evidence that we are the cause or even a significant factor in it is not scientifically established, IMO. We should be focused on adapting to it . . . rather than futilely trying to do something about it. This does NOT have anything to do with pollution and other planet damaging activities which should be eliminated. But we are being distracted by this over-inflated view of our effect on GLOBAL processes. We are like the fleas on a Bull Mastiff arguing over how we can change where he is going.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So then how should we treat the environment then from this point forward out of curiosity?
Recognize its true magnitude and SCOPE. Realize that our ability to impact climate change is minimal to non-existent . . . (especially given we are virtually certain NEVER to get agreement among ALL human societies on what to try to do about it or whether or not to try). We should focus on pollution abatement by establishing incentives to clean up the processes currently polluting the planet. We are never going to be able to police them and punish them. That requires catching them and getting access to their property to gather evidence after wading through their banks of lawyers . . . all for very little gain. Fines are useless because the profits exceed any potential fines that could be levied.
We need to reverse the dynamic. Require THEM to provide evidence that they are cleaning up the environment by giving us access to their effluents and records in order to gain significant incentives that add to their bottom line. They will be lining up requesting on-site visits in long lines to reap the benefits. No need to wade through lawyers. If we are serious about cleaning up the environment . . . that is the way to go. Make it more profitable for them to operate cleaner processes and achieve real progress in cleaning up the existing pollution and the profit motive will result in an environment cleaner than God made.
Like you, I'm not a scientist, so I haven't studied climate science. I could start looking it up for you, but I'm too sleepy to. Why? Are you going to try to reason it all out without a degree in science?
That sound you all just heard was little saritas running away from the debate at high speed, tail tucked firmly between his hind legs.
Have any of the Global-Whatever pushers yet been able to point to ANY study that actually proves a link between man's activities and climate change?
Or still just the same old ones that point to other studies... which point to yet more studies... which point to still others... and none ever proves a connection?
We should be focused on adapting to it . . . rather than futilely trying to do something about it. This does NOT have anything to do with pollution and other planet damaging activities which should be eliminated. But we are being distracted by this over-inflated view of our effect on GLOBAL processes. We are like the fleas on a Bull Mastiff arguing over how we can change where he is going.
Correct! One of the rally sad consequences of the CAGW hysteria is that resources are diverted from real environmental issues. For example, if we spent a small portion of the money going to wasted green efforts on our parks, we would have the best parks on earth.
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.
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.
