What's new

Global Climate Status Report

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...e-through-heart-skeptics-argument-ncna1033646

"....a pair of studies published Wednesday provides stark evidence that the rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been far more rapid and widespread than any warming period in the past 2,000 years — a finding that undercuts claims that today’s global warming isn’t necessarily the result of human activity.

One of the studies, published in the journal Nature, shows that the Little Ice Age and other natural fluctuations affected only limited regions of the planet at a time, making modern warming the first and only planetwide warm period in the past two millennia. The other study, published in Nature Geoscience, shows that the rate of modern warming has far outpaced changes that occurred before the rise of the industrial era".

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02179-2

Again, @Red , the fact is there is political bias in current reports generally, and Nature is part of the crime. Even forty years ago, I could see the bias in Nature. Our whole society, across the entire Progressive era, has been biased in support of the movement.

So here is what you need to consider.....

alarmists can't be trusted any more than a lynch mob. High pitched "cause" pushers are not even talking in real objective language.

The Nature article, like many others, deliberately frames the report in alarmist rhetoric, and in fact huge lies. The lie here is to consider only the past 2000 years.

The climate has been changing longer than that. It's been doing ice ages/interglacial warms in cycles of almost fifty times that scale. So it is a lie to pick out any 2000 years and project the discussion as a deviation from the ice age cycle.

Even within interglacial warm peaks which last 10000 to 15000 years, there are "waves" of changes that are larger than what we have seen in the past 150 years.

I have seen some interesting skeptic material on the equations being used to predict the impact of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, which seemed fairly reasonable at my level of education in math. The question should be raised. We should insist that the models get the equation right. CO2 does increase the ability of the atmosphere to hold heat, and alter both radiation reaching the surface.... warming the ocean and land, and the radiation being "lost" to space because all warm bodies radiate heat. CO2 is likely the reason we have had rainforests at the poles in geologic history....according to the fossil record... well rainforests sorta like the Pacific Northwest seashore.
 
Forty years ago, the "Progressives" were using the Great Ice Age scare to push their political power grab schemes. We gotta have more government to solve the crisis.

However, the natural fact is, more CO2 in the atmosphere reasonably can be expected to help the atmosphere retain heat. CO2 will capture radiation going or coming. The energetic modes of CO2 will then transfer that heat to other molecules in collisions or by it's own radiation. That didn't fit so well with the Great Ice Age Scare. And it just doesn't give the same leverage to fascist honchos/globalists with "solutions" as having a reason to regulate/control all human activity using energy....

We are going to have another Ice Age. The CO2 will not prevent it. Ice Age cycles involve some natural source of change that is more than ten times as significant as CO2 in the overall balance of things.

It is true that Ice Ages never occurred until the Earth's Atmosphere lost enough CO2, but they have occurred even with twice the atmospheric levels of CO2 our worst alarmists can conjure up for the next hundred years.

But an Ice Age is incompatible with any political scheme to restrict fossil fuel use. Well, not really, but in the popular science version of The Way Things Are. In the understanding of ordinary people, at first glance.

The great Rockefeller progenitor made is wealth in the oil monopoly business.....

Most people do not realize his genius. He was not one to rush gas out to fuel a price war at the gas stations. He always acted to restrict supply and keep prices high. A price war was madness to him.

Our oil industry has a few competitors that still try to gain market share by price competition. But it annoys the hell outta the Bigs.

The Great Carbon Scare is going to give governments the leverage to kill those competitors, by sheer massive regulations which nobody can survive.... except for the Bigs who "own" the governments worldwide.

Just look at your hands, @Red, and whole bunch of the progressives pushers. You are playing the Rockefeller tune. You are the foot soldiers to restrict competition, reduce supplies, and make the Rockefeller holdings multiply in market value. You are working for the great Honcho Cartel.

People die when they have no fuel to burn in the icy cold of winter. People die when they are herded across the globe to enhance political power. People die when government increases. People die when dictators like Xi build their social score algorhythms and restrict people's access to transportation, or send them to camps. People die when ever some damn bureaucrat makes a new rule.

So anyway, I'm not going to make this thread a political thread. Just don't ask me to roll over for any Nature article. The British educational elites since the Civil War have crafted the progressive movement using a band of pirates hijacking every free thinking intellect and swamping them with institutional elitism. The grand cause of integrated human management, in the eyes of any good progressive, however well-intended, just cannot allow the facts to interfere with the program.

Truth does not present an issue to progressive pushers.... government must increase..... people must decrease. That is all that matters.

The fact is, we do not have statistical basis to project global warming, nor to assume CO2 is the critical cause, nor to justify regulating human use of fossil fuel. The data is insufficient. The alarmists refuse to allow consideration of more significant issues into the discussion.
 
So we have actual scientific measurements of sea level rise across the globe, but because one fisherman hasn't noticed a difference, the science is wrong?

K.
No. The fisherman just doesn't believe the science. And the science does not support a claim that would be noticeable to a fisherman. Three inches is less than the daily tides, less than the waves most days.

The political crusaders are making a hell of a lot more outta the science than the science really says.
 
So, looking at current data available to me, it still looks to me like we have about 1 degree Celsius gain in ocean surface temperature worldwide. About the same as the atmospheric gains most sources tout as proof of anthropogenic global warming or human-caused climate change.

These temp changes, over a relatively short span, however, are not statistically improbable in the available data..... as something that could be happening for any number of reasons, or as something that is unusual in the ice age cycles so far as we know, yet.

And even if it were human caused in this instance, there is no actual connection with that fact to a political cause for worldwide political and legislative action. The one thing that would be most appropriate, in terms of the fact of human-caused climate change, would be making accurate estimates of the effects, informing the public, and allowing people to respond with that understanding on individual judgment.

oh. I guess I won't buy that sea shore shack in New Jersey.

hmmm..... maybe Manhattan is not the place to build my next great hotel/skyscraper.

It's not a problem the government needs to solve.

It's not an excuse for socialism.
 
So.....you have arrived.....

I think what you're saying here explains huge floating "islands" in the Pacific, made of clumped plastics loosely speaking.

A while ago. I read about a new invention in the Philippines..... a sort of autoclave for heating plastic to the vapor point..... various gas components emitted when polymers get hot enough to disintegrate....


It's a genius idea. Global problem, local solution. People can gather plastic outta the landfill, take it to the local autoclave, which resolves it back into various economic resources. You can run the vapors through a condenser and collect "fractions" at various liquifaction/condensation points.

The unit could produce gasoline, diesel, and airplane fuel.... and the lower end gases could be compressed and sold for propane cooking or heating use...

So many very poor people...... a way for starving folks to earn a day's wage, just gathering plastic junk and bringing it to the mini-refinery.
Technology and investing into it is what will solve our polution problems. I've always thought that. Guilting people into not using straws won't even put a dent in the issue.
 
So we have actual scientific measurements of sea level rise across the globe, but because one fisherman hasn't noticed a difference, the science is wrong?

K.

No one else has either. Think of the restaurants, boat docks, piers ect that are on the ocean. You really think if the water was rising like they say, they may have to raise them eventually after all these decades or centuries? None of these predictions ever come true either. Trying to predict climate is like cracking open a massive book somewhere in the middle, reading one sentence and then trying to decide/speculate how the rest of the story will end..
 
No one else has either. Think of the restaurants, boat docks, piers ect that are on the ocean. You really think if the water was rising like they say, they may have to raise them eventually after all these decades or centuries? None of these predictions ever come true either. Trying to predict climate is like cracking open a massive book somewhere in the middle, reading one sentence and then trying to decide/speculate how the rest of the story will end..
No one has noticed? That's what you're going with huh. Just straight up plain old ignorance. OK.
 
Forty years ago, the "Progressives" were using the Great Ice Age scare to push their political power grab schemes. We gotta have more government to solve the crisis.

However, the natural fact is, more CO2 in the atmosphere reasonably can be expected to help the atmosphere retain heat. CO2 will capture radiation going or coming. The energetic modes of CO2 will then transfer that heat to other molecules in collisions or by it's own radiation. That didn't fit so well with the Great Ice Age Scare. And it just doesn't give the same leverage to fascist honchos/globalists with "solutions" as having a reason to regulate/control all human activity using energy....

We are going to have another Ice Age. The CO2 will not prevent it. Ice Age cycles involve some natural source of change that is more than ten times as significant as CO2 in the overall balance of things.

It is true that Ice Ages never occurred until the Earth's Atmosphere lost enough CO2, but they have occurred even with twice the atmospheric levels of CO2 our worst alarmists can conjure up for the next hundred years.

But an Ice Age is incompatible with any political scheme to restrict fossil fuel use. Well, not really, but in the popular science version of The Way Things Are. In the understanding of ordinary people, at first glance.

The great Rockefeller progenitor made is wealth in the oil monopoly business.....

Most people do not realize his genius. He was not one to rush gas out to fuel a price war at the gas stations. He always acted to restrict supply and keep prices high. A price war was madness to him.

Our oil industry has a few competitors that still try to gain market share by price competition. But it annoys the hell outta the Bigs.

The Great Carbon Scare is going to give governments the leverage to kill those competitors, by sheer massive regulations which nobody can survive.... except for the Bigs who "own" the governments worldwide.

Just look at your hands, @Red, and whole bunch of the progressives pushers. You are playing the Rockefeller tune. You are the foot soldiers to restrict competition, reduce supplies, and make the Rockefeller holdings multiply in market value. You are working for the great Honcho Cartel.

People die when they have no fuel to burn in the icy cold of winter. People die when they are herded across the globe to enhance political power. People die when government increases. People die when dictators like Xi build their social score algorhythms and restrict people's access to transportation, or send them to camps. People die when ever some damn bureaucrat makes a new rule.

So anyway, I'm not going to make this thread a political thread. Just don't ask me to roll over for any Nature article. The British educational elites since the Civil War have crafted the progressive movement using a band of pirates hijacking every free thinking intellect and swamping them with institutional elitism. The grand cause of integrated human management, in the eyes of any good progressive, however well-intended, just cannot allow the facts to interfere with the program.

Truth does not present an issue to progressive pushers.... government must increase..... people must decrease. That is all that matters.

The fact is, we do not have statistical basis to project global warming, nor to assume CO2 is the critical cause, nor to justify regulating human use of fossil fuel. The data is insufficient. The alarmists refuse to allow consideration of more significant issues into the discussion.

Human caused global warming is real. As far as all of the above, I suspect it's up there with your theories on the moon landing. You're raving. At least that's the tone I'm picking up on. Raving. i can't take anything you say seriously. Look, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. I do not believe you. I'm not a fan of fanaticism, and you strike me as a fanatic. I've heard portions of the above in many of your comments, in many threads. I think it's nuts. You talk like someone with a fevered mind. Completely obsessed. Fevered. It's a shame, but I hope you come to your senses sooner or later. Nobody deserves to be trapped in that kind of mind fever.
 
Human caused global warming is real. As far as all of the above, I suspect it's up there with your theories on the moon landing. You're raving. At least that's the tone I'm picking up on. Raving. i can't take anything you say seriously. Look, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. I do not believe you. I'm not a fan of fanaticism, and you strike me as a fanatic. I've heard portions of the above in many of your comments, in many threads. I think it's nuts. You talk like someone with a fevered mind. Completely obsessed. Fevered. It's a shame, but I hope you come to your senses sooner or later. Nobody deserves to be trapped in that kind of mind fever.

lol dude have you read some of your own rantings about Trump ??
 
No one else has either. Think of the restaurants, boat docks, piers ect that are on the ocean. You really think if the water was rising like they say, they may have to raise them eventually after all these decades or centuries? None of these predictions ever come true either. Trying to predict climate is like cracking open a massive book somewhere in the middle, reading one sentence and then trying to decide/speculate how the rest of the story will end..
Lol

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
lol dude have you read some of your own rantings about Trump ??

Of course, I wrote them. But I suspect babe may actually be insane. If anything, I'm overly rational, and I've been right about Trump from day one. From the day he descended the escalator in Trump Tower, I've had a crystal clear understanding of what Trump represents. Don't agree? I couldn't care less. Dude.
 
lol dude have you read some of your own rantings about Trump ??
They are long winded but actually have a lot of thought in them and make sense. Links from quality sources are always provided.

Babe on the other hand? Straight up craziness.

No comparison of the two

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Of course, I wrote them. But I suspect babe may be insane. If anything, I'm overly rational, and I've been right about Trump from day one. From the day he descended the escalator in Trump Tower, I've had a crystal clear understanding of what Trump represents. Don't agree? I couldn't care less. Dude.

Dude I don’t gaf. Trump is a clown. But some of your long winded posts sound the same way that you are describing babes.
 
Again, @Red , the fact is there is political bias in current reports generally, and Nature is part of the crime.

That so-called political "bias" arose in response to the development of a right wing(i.e. political) climate change denying ecosphere rooted in the self interest of the fossil fuel industry. Bolstered and promoted by scientists paid by that same industry. All the scientists who support the research pointing to human caused climate change have done is point out the non-scientific, political bias of industry paid scientific lackeys. Since the deniers' arguments are entirely rooted in politics pretending to be science, pointing out that fact, by real scientists whose work is rooted in objective data, inevitably introduces the political bias of the deniers into the conversation. Really, whose fault is that?

It's good that climate science points out the political underpinnings of the deniers' arguments, since some members of the public are otherwise likely to miss that fundamental truth. The deniers lie, misrepresent and twist data to suit their agenda. And organizations like the Heritage Institute back those deniers, just like they used to back the tobacco industry in the earlier debates over the health hazards of cigarettes.
 
They are long winded but actually have a lot of thought in them and make sense. Links from quality sources are always provided.

Thank you, fish. I do try very hard, maybe too hard at times, and "short and succinct" will never be a strength on my part. Forums are probably the entirely wrong venue for exhausting and in-depth, but my comments are always sincere, and thought out. Maybe long windedness and passionate about one's beliefs has its drawbacks at times, but I can't settle for simplistic and ill-thought out. I'm sure I make mistakes, reflect bias, etc., but the subject of Trump is very complex, and that is a truth that can't be given short shift. I greatly admire someone like @Gameface, who has a gift I lack: fewer words, succinct, and to the point.
 
Dude I don’t gaf. Trump is a clown. But some of your long winded posts sound the same way that you are describing babes.

I want to revise my reply to say, one, you are entitled to your opinion, and two, since the ability to see ourselves as others see us is seldom an innate ability, being exposed to such views should never be summarily rejected, but should instead be seen as an opportunity to see ourselves through the eyes of others. Now, that said, I have little choice but to see @babe views as rooted in irrational fears and reasoning. I do not believe the same can be said of myself, but, should it be true to even the slightest degree, recognizing it should be seen as an opportunity for self understanding. So, I disagree, but welcome your opinion, and accept it as how you see things. And I'm sure you're not alone, but I will continue to see Trump as a low point in the history of my country.
 
Top