Climate Change Anyone?

WrongHanded

Active member
I'm seriously interested in what you guys think about climate change. I know what I believe, which is that it is largely - if not solely - a man made problem, which is only going to get worse.

But I want to know what you think. And more importantly, why? (Let's keep it friendly though)
 
Yes there climate change, it's a cycle,it gets hot then cold and hot again. This has been proven many times, looking at the ice cores may help some understand. We are in a period of up swing at the moment.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Yes there climate change, it's a cycle,it gets hot then cold and hot again. This has been proven many times, looking at the ice cores may help some understand. We are in a period of up swing at the moment.
So you believe in the science behind the discovery and proof of a "cycle" of warming and cooling?

Do you believe in the science that shows there was a higher carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere during warmer periods, and a lower carbon dioxide content in cooler periods? Because there's a proven direct correlation there.

Did you also know that long before the idea of "climate change" or "global warming" were ever conceived of, science proved that carbon dioxide blocks radiant heat better than any other common gas in the atmosphere by a wide margin? That's proven too.

Do you know what causes this "cycle" of warming and cooling? That is something for which I have yet to see an explanation. Carbon dioxide content in the air, is certainly a correlating factor. But is there an explanation as to why the content would cycle up and down in any sort of regular pattern? There must be some reason for that, right?
 

TomJ

Member
I'm assuming you're referring to many made climate change, as warmer and cooler cycles are natural. The problem I have with man made climate change is that the people pushing it have lied too often about it, such as fudging numbers, their predictions are always of dire consequences at some point in the far future, none of which have yet to come true and it's being used to push a political agenda. I'm a strong advocate for clean air and water as well as being good stewards of the environment, but haven't bought into the man made climate change arguments.

 

WrongHanded

Active member
I'm assuming you're referring to many made climate change, as warmer and cooler cycles are natural. The problem I have with man made climate change is that the people pushing it have lied too often about it, such as fudging numbers, their predictions are always of dire consequences at some point in the far future, none of which have yet to come true and it's being used to push a political agenda. I'm a strong advocate for clean air and water as well as being good stewards of the environment, but haven't bought into the man made climate change arguments.
I think fear mongering can be very effective sometimes. But that doesn't make it right.

However, just knowing something is wrong and having an idea which direction things are going, doesn't mean there's enough data available to make any kind of accurate predictions.

For example: I've seen a hypothesis that deep oceanic water is absorbing a lot of excess heat in the atmosphere. This seems quite plausible to me because of the truly massive volume beneath the surface. But I wonder how long the oceans could act as an effective heat sink.

Here's a question though: How bad would droughts, floods, and tropical storms have to get before you started to wonder if it really was man made? How bad would things have to get?
 

Magnum

Well-known member
Oh boy, I'm going to have to clear my schedule for this discussion :D

I believe that the environment and the climate are separate things , a polluted environment doesn't dictate the climate.
When I was a kid in the late 80s and early 90s we heard "global warming" constantly, that hasn't been the case and so the term shifted to "climate change". Yeah , temperatures rise & fall. They always have. So we need to examine what has happened and take a look at global temperatures throughout history .

Screenshot_20200928-164520~2.png


Why was it so cold 8,000 years ago? Why was it so hot 3,500 years ago? There was no industry polluting the environment . the logical and realistic answer is an irregular orbit coupled with storms or flares on the sun. That changes climate.

The reason many refuse to have this conversation is because they don't have answers and are running on emotion. If a person claims that the climate has been affected by man then they should be able to give a rough estimate of what average global temperature would be if man never existed, no one knows that so any argument that says climate change has been caused by man is already a guess. I think that's indisputable unless someone can give the answer they assume it's man's fault.

Look at the sea ice expansion,
Screenshot_20200928-170252~2.png

There is an attempt to explain how this fits with climate change by "experts " of unprovable science . let's take an honest look though, wouldn't the change be cumulative and ever decreasing ? I would have to see sharp climbs or falls that continuously trend in the same direction more and more and more each year . not the case at all.

Here is a link discussing how the hole in the ozone layer that some have said for years will kill us has virtually disappeared. How is it possible, we have more humans and industry now than at any point in human existence . we were told he caused it but now that doesn't seem likely.

Ignore the people who push an agenda ,look at real facts. Humans can certainly pollute the environment, no one doubts that but I have never seen any evidence that it changes the climate. If humans are the cause of climate change why wouldn't the temperatures be higher or lower (whichever theory you subscribe to) every single year? The highest recorded temperature in my area was in 1934, the lowest was in 1985- doesn't look like we're building toward any trend of hot or cold. How about in your area? These are solid facts, indisputable and show no trend one way or another.

I in no way advocate polluting the environment but I'm also unwilling to live like a caveman to try to stop some climate emergency that we aren't likely causing. I would like for someone to show real evidence of a change and if that can be shown correlate that with distance from the sun and what conditions on the sun are at those times.

One other thing I'll mention is that the way I view the planet is self regulating . let's assume the "scientists " are correct, increased carbon causes increased temperature (I don't believe that's the case, but for the sake of conversation) by that same logic the growing season and areas of plant/tree growth would be increased. As we all know, plants remove the carbon from our air so longer and more dispersed growth would closely follow any extended or consistent temperature increase. If everything gets warmer, we have more foliage , seems logical to me.

I can go on for a long long time on this but I'll leave it here and follow up with other examples as the conversation continues.
 

Selena

Member
considering that a mere 10,000 years ago the area I live now was under a massive glacier it would appear the globe has been warming far longer than human civilization could manufacture. It's a mark to me that the same climatologists that cannot come up with the mechanism for the melting of the Wisconsin glacier with the evidence available believe they can reliably predict planet wide changes in the future. If the model doesn't match the environment then the model is wrong.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
@Magnum to answer you on the ozone layer issue, we stopped using cfc gas in things like spray paint. That's why the ozone layer stopped being destroyed. Here's an explanation courtesy of NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/nasa-study-first-direct-proof-of-ozone-hole-recovery-due-to-chemicals-ban

Regarding your graph, it appears to be a BS fabrication. Here's a detailed explanation of why: https://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

You may have to click on the image links. They didn't show up on the page for me. But to cut to the chase, the guy misused and misrepresented the data. The last image shows two temperature data points in blue of the real temperatures at various times past that which the icecore represented.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
considering that a mere 10,000 years ago the area I live now was under a massive glacier it would appear the globe has been warming far longer than human civilization could manufacture. It's a mark to me that the same climatologists that cannot come up with the mechanism for the melting of the Wisconsin glacier with the evidence available believe they can reliably predict planet wide changes in the future. If the model doesn't match the environment then the model is wrong.
See the link in my earlier post on the Milankovitch Cycles. Evident the glacial/inter-glacial cycle is about 100,000 years. But that doesn't mean we aren't deviating from it.

I don't know anything about the Wisconsin Glacier though.
 

TomJ

Member
Here's a question though: How bad would droughts, floods, and tropical storms have to get before you started to wonder if it really was man made? How bad would things have to get?
That's a hypothetical which assumes things were worse due to man's actions. What I know to be fact is that the alternative energy sources such as solar and wind can not currently provide the energy the world needs. They may be viable one day, but they're not now or in the near future, meaning the next few years. Banning fossil and nuclear fuels, which is the end game in large part with those promoting climate change is unrealistic. They're against coal as it's supposedly too dirty, natural gas as they're against fracking and nuclear as they claim it's unsafe. Collapsing the world's economy because of an unproven hypothetical is a non starter for me. I have kids and a grandchild on the way and no dog in the climate change fight. If climate change was a threat to them I would be one of the people demanding a change for my kids and grandkids sake but, as I stated before, give no credibility to those who have been pushing that cause. I'm curious as to what solution you'd suggest in regards to our energy needs if we address climate change by eliminating fossil and nuclear fuels.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
to answer you on the ozone layer issue, we stopped using cfc gas in things like spray paint. That's why the ozone layer stopped being destroyed. Here's an explanation courtesy of NASA:
Not exactly, from that same site.
Screenshot_20200928-182909~2.png

Hasn't been 50 years since cfc were banned and certainly not the 140 years it takes for some to degrade, it in no way explains how the hole virtually disappears in one year.


Regarding your graph, it appears to be a BS fabrication. Here's a detailed explanation of why:
A dishonest look at valid data. Let's just go with the basis that the samples don't represent current climate and it is indeed representive of 1850s climate, it still clearly shows climate changes during that period. The article only claims that the timeline isn't current or the data shown as current represents the 1850s, if you read the comments on that site many people call bs on the article. The point is, someone says one thing and others say another, evidence doesn't support man made change any way I can see it, regardless if the timeline is off by a hundred or two years.
Screenshot_20200928-184517~2.png
 

Magnum

Well-known member
That's a hypothetical which assumes things were worse due to man's actions. What I know to be fact is that the alternative energy sources such as solar and wind can not currently provide the energy the world needs. They may be viable one day, but they're not now or in the near future, meaning the next few years. Banning fossil and nuclear fuels, which is the end game in large part with those promoting climate change is unrealistic. They're against coal as it's supposedly too dirty, natural gas as they're against fracking and nuclear as they claim it's unsafe. Collapsing the world's economy because of an unproven hypothetical is a non starter for me. I have kids and a grandchild on the way and no dog in the climate change fight. If climate change was a threat to them I would be one of the people demanding a change for my kids and grandkids sake but, as I stated before, give no credibility to those who have been pushing that cause. I'm curious as to what solution you'd suggest in regards to our energy needs if we address climate change by eliminating fossil and nuclear fuels.
Another thing alternative energy proponents overlook is how these devices are produced , what they're made from and how the materials are sourced. Mercury, lead, petroleum , and other materials are vital to these things working, likely more harmful than what we use and they still need to be disposed of when they break. Without a mining operation you don't get these materials, I want to see an electric earth mover try to do what diesels do and when they can, imagine the battery and motor construction , they don't factor that into the environmental impact. There's no free lunch in the energy production world. Like the tesla driver plugs his green car into a power source derived from coal or nuclear, the impact is likely the same or worse.look at California , can't provide energy for their residents because of their backwards concept of green energy.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
That's a hypothetical which assumes things were worse due to man's actions. What I know to be fact is that the alternative energy sources such as solar and wind can not currently provide the energy the world needs. They may be viable one day, but they're not now or in the near future, meaning the next few years. Banning fossil and nuclear fuels, which is the end game in large part with those promoting climate change is unrealistic. They're against coal as it's supposedly too dirty, natural gas as they're against fracking and nuclear as they claim it's unsafe. Collapsing the world's economy because of an unproven hypothetical is a non starter for me. I have kids and a grandchild on the way and no dog in the climate change fight. If climate change was a threat to them I would be one of the people demanding a change for my kids and grandkids sake but, as I stated before, give no credibility to those who have been pushing that cause. I'm curious as to what solution you'd suggest in regards to our energy needs if we address climate change by eliminating fossil and nuclear fuels.
Nuclear is practical and doesn't produce carbon dioxide like fossil fuels do. France uses a lot of nuclear power apparently.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Not exactly, from that same site.
View attachment 683
Hasn't been 50 years since cfc were banned and certainly not the 140 years it takes for some to degrade, it in no way explains how the hole virtually disappears in one year.
Which site have you taken the screenshot from? And how old is the article? I ask because there's a reference to reduced lose of ozone measure between 2005-2016. What about the last four years?

A dishonest look at valid data. Let's just go with the basis that the samples don't represent current climate and it is indeed representive of 1850s climate, it still clearly shows climate changes during that period. The article only claims that the timeline isn't current or the data shown as current represents the 1850s, if you read the comments on that site many people call bs on the article. The point is, someone says one thing and others say another, evidence doesn't support man made change any way I can see it, regardless if the timeline is off by a hundred or two years.
View attachment 684
My point is that after the 1800s temperatures have risen. Temperature increases since the end of the useful ice core data have been substancial. These are the two relevant graphs where additional temperature data points have been added.



I suppose he could have replotted the graph, but the graph is based on ice core data, and his point is that the data ends before a temperature spike in the 1900's which is the period of the industrial revolution where we started producing carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuel. Basically, the most relevant data to man made climate change isn't present in those ice core samples. So they don't help us at all.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Only the sites you provided links to
Okay, okay. I confess, I didn't read it all that well. You asked about pollution and ozone damage. The short answer was that we stopped using cfc's. The article is from 2018. I don't know how long it takes for the ozone to repair itself, but I do know cfc's caused the damage and we don't use them any more.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
They do, they show a trend that began before industrialization .
But by the original graph, we should be cooling. That was the trend the graph showed. But the average global temperature in the 1900s and 2000s is not represented, and yet is higher and trending up.

Here's some data with explanations as to where it's from. http://ossfoundation.us/the-leading-edge/projects/environment/global-warming/current-climate-conditions#section-10

We're trending up a lot more than the ice core data shows.
 
Top