Climate Change Anyone?

WrongHanded

Active member
I agree and am all for it, but those promoting climate change are not for it.

Which is really unfortunate, but it's the best option. The reality is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, and its effect on increasing global temperatures is proven. The most important thing to me is that carbon emissions and increased warming don't get further out of control. Unfortunately, all the recent hot arid drought conditions leading to the wildfires, and the increasing severity and frequency of tropical storms are both the result of higher global temperatures. So I don't see why they can't get on board with nuclear, at least as a transitional power source.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
We're trending up a lot more than the ice core data shows.
Totally possible but it isn't addressing where my doubts are. My doubt is that it's man made, what would the same data show if man never existed? Since that isn't a value that can be known, it can't be proven one way or another. Maybe if man never existed it would be 5° cooler , or maybe 5 ° warmer or maybe exactly where it is today, that's my point. I'm not intentionally trying to say it would be one way or another, just simply that the climate patterns have been completely chaotic and unpredictable over the time frame we can examine and not one of the experts would have forecast the ozone repair now, the article you linked said possibly by 2080 it would be gone. They have no clue. Whenever I see something that doesn't make sense or has conflicting data presented as fact I assume there's motivation to push that info. Like @TomJ said, I have no dog in this fight . but I'm not going to abandon modern conscience because there'd a possibility our modern lifestyle caused a 1° temperature change in 170 years, or maybe it didn't , could have happened either way.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
all the recent hot arid drought conditions leading to the wildfires, and the increasing severity and frequency of tropical storms are both the result of higher global temperatures.
Arson and poor forestry practices are to blame for California's fires- they don't clear dead foliage cause they say an animal lives in there. There have always been tropical storms, can't see how they can relate the severity of a storm to something humans did.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
I'm really trying to be as honest and open minded as possible but for every graph one side shows there is another in direct contradiction . if anything was rock solid and 100% proven there would be no need for debate on the subject. They tell us one thing until it's disproven and then it's right on to the next thing for the new generation. If climate change truly is a man made problem then certainly we would see a steady and consistent predictable rise year by year as industry expands and population grows, it isn't the case though. If next year shows lower global temperature average we'll have the same people saying "see, we told you. Climate change!!" And if it's warmer , same people with the same claim.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Arson and poor forestry practices are to blame for California's fires- they don't clear dead foliage cause they say an animal lives in there. There have always been tropical storms, can't see how they can relate the severity of a storm to something humans did.

There's a proven correlation between tropical storm severity and frequency, and temperature. I believe the data goes back to the 1700's. I know it was in some documentary I watched, and included written reports from the Caribbean from that time period, coupled with paleo temperature data.

No one was sweeping up the leaves in forests during the 1800s, but we did keep records of forest fires. They're getting worse, and not just in the US. Remember Australia last year?
 

Magnum

Well-known member
There's a proven correlation between tropical storm severity and frequency, and temperature. I believe the data goes back to the 1700's. I know it was in some documentary I watched, and included written reports from the Caribbean from that time period, coupled with paleo temperature data.

No one was sweeping up the leaves in forests during the 1800s, but we did keep records of forest fires. They're getting worse, and not just in the US. Remember Australia last year?
Forests have always burned. Human populations have made cities where the forests used to be so the two collide now. Back in the old days they didn't have helicopters to view the damage like we do now and there was no way to measure a storms severity and less population meant when storms hit, there may not have been anyone there to see it let alone measure how strong the winds were ect.
If this is truly the case, wouldnt those same conditions exist when the average temperature was considerably higher 1000 years ago? If so , then it must be true that we aren't responsible. If not, then there is no correlation to temperature. No?
 

WrongHanded

Active member
I'm really trying to be as honest and open minded as possible but for every graph one side shows there is another in direct contradiction . if anything was rock solid and 100% proven there would be no need for debate on the subject. They tell us one thing until it's disproven and then it's right on to the next thing for the new generation. If climate change truly is a man made problem then certainly we would see a steady and consistent predictable rise year by year as industry expands and population grows, it isn't the case though. If next year shows lower global temperature average we'll have the same people saying "see, we told you. Climate change!!" And if it's warmer , same people with the same claim.

I, like you, was indoctrinated into believing in "global warming". Indoctrinated because I did not see the evidence, or did not understand it. So I walked away, and I looked at the other side, not as a denier but as a skeptic. The problem is, the science - once I started looking at it - made me have to revisit the concept and take it seriously.

So if you're really interested in considering the possibility that the current warming is breaking from the cyclical trend, take a look at this site. There's masses of data here. They even have a section that covers merging paleo temperature records and observational data that only became possible in the late 1800's.

But start with the Myths and Facts page: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Forests have always burned. Human populations have made cities where the forests used to be so the two collide now. Back in the old days they didn't have helicopters to view the damage like we do now and there was no way to measure a storms severity and less population meant when storms hit, there may not have been anyone there to see it let alone measure how strong the winds were ect.
If this is truly the case, wouldnt those same conditions exist when the average temperature was considerably higher 1000 years ago? If so , then it must be true that we aren't responsible. If not, then there is no correlation to temperature. No?

But the temperature wasn't higher 1000 years ago. It's just that one graph that makes you think that.

 

Magnum

Well-known member
But the temperature wasn't higher 1000 years ago. It's just that one graph that makes you think that.

This only addresses back to the 1800s, nothing about 1,000-10,000 years back, if it does please show me. One graph shows one thing from someone with an agenda and another shows conflicting data from... Someone with an agenda.
Screenshot_20200928-210252~2.png

I don't see the record highs exceeding anything, if it correlated the highest recorded temperatures would have been this year, not the case though. Look up when the temperature records for your area were set and report back, I've shown when they were in my area, highest temp was almost 40 years ago, not this last July. Even taking all of that into account still doesn't prove it has anything at all to do with man, just that climate is chaotic and unpredictable . if this was real true science the summer of 2021 should be the hottest on record and the the summer of 2022 and so on. This isn't linear and isn't proven.

Warmer temperatures 1000 years ago are proven, not guessed. It's called the medevil warm period, not just one guys findings but accepted by the same folks who push the narrative of man made climate change but those same people insist that the possible warming (or cooling?) We're having now is caused by man. But the last warm period? Must have been cow farts or something .
Screenshot_20200928-211141.png
 

Magnum

Well-known member
I also want to point out how deceptive the graphs are, they show a .8° temperature increase as an all red line the whole height of the graph, if put in overall context it would be a tiny bump not the earth melting spike they portray .
 

WrongHanded

Active member
@Magnum



There you go. Temp data further back.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
@Magnum



There you go. Temp data further back.
The first link shows back hundreds of thousands of years and supports the fact that it's been warmer than now
climate-reconstructions-500000-years2.gif


The second link only shows what we've already been over with lots of data that means exactly nothing to me, maybe you know what the abbreviations mean? Bit clearly the warmer period 1000 years ago.
Screenshot_20200928-214314~2.png

I think I totally missed your point.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
The first link shows back hundreds of thousands of years and supports the fact that it's been warmer than now
View attachment 687

The second link only shows what we've already been over with lots of data that means exactly nothing to me, maybe you know what the abbreviations mean? Bit clearly the warmer period 1000 years ago.
View attachment 688
I think I totally missed your point.

The first shows that it was warmer..... more than 100,000 years ago. Forest fires back then aren't a concern. Neither are tropic storm severity.

The second is a bunch of different data sets from various paleo temperature research. So not all data lines up perfectly, but most trends the same way. The different colors are from different sites where data was collected, so there's some variance. Yes, one data set in blue has a spike about as high as the far right side of the graph. That's just one data set though.

Merging paleo data sets with "modern" observed data is apparently not simple. Which is why I included these sources to accompany the observed data from the late 1800s to present day.

Now, on the oss website, you can find carbon dioxide output graphs from the 1800s on, that correlate with temperature increases. Our actions are causing the current warming trend that has been going on for the past 150 years. We have broken from the natural cycle.

ETA: Whilst the screenshot of some untitled graphs of the medieval warm period seem compelling, I'd rather have the information in context and including temperatures up to the 2000s if possible. So here's a different graph and some more information that suggests it wasn't warmer then than it is now.


Which is what the multi data set graph shows.
 
Last edited:

WrongHanded

Active member
There's some gret videos on Prager U regarding this. The link is below.


Do you know what year that was recorded? I couldn't figure it out, but I don't think the presenter mentioned any year more recent than 2014. Some statistics were only up to 2012 or 2013. I wonder what some of those graphs would like like today? I think data from 2015 to 2020 might tell a different story. It certainly doesn't look good to me from some quick searches I've done.

This is part of the problem though, isn't it. We make our choices about what we believe based on the evidence we see or the evidence we WANT to see. And then we decide we don't need to reconsider the matter. Before you know it, a decade has gone by and things have changed. But shouldn't we be using current data to do that, and understanding it as best we can?

Perhaps we'll start cooling off in a few years. The medieval warm period may well have been the natural peak of this cycle, and maybe despite current temperatures being slightly higher, and the 35% or so additional CO2 in the atmosphere, we'll start to cool down anyway. But it's not looking promising.
 

Magnum

Well-known member
The first shows that it was warmer..... more than 100,000 years ago. Forest fires back then aren't a concern. Neither are tropic storm severity.
That is exactly my point, IF temperatures were the same or higher than now, THEN wouldn't the trend of fires, draughts ect. coincide with the warmer temperatures ? The point isn't that there were natural disasters in the past too but that whatever temperatures we have in modern times are not unusual or different from what the planet experienced in the past . the fact that the info shows nothing that I can see that's drastic or disturbing , if I'm not seeing what you are please direct me to the info that seems dangerous and scary. Any thoughts on my thoughts here?:
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
 

Selena

Member
Bottom line is heat. The man-made global warming theory holds that man's activities have increased greenhouse gases trapping more heat etc etc ad nausem. Never mind the Pacific ocean emits more greenhouse gases in week than mankind does in a year and has been for eons.
 

WrongHanded

Active member
That is exactly my point, IF temperatures were the same or higher than now, THEN wouldn't the trend of fires, draughts ect. coincide with the warmer temperatures ? The point isn't that there were natural disasters in the past too but that whatever temperatures we have in modern times are not unusual or different from what the planet experienced in the past . the fact that the info shows nothing that I can see that's drastic or disturbing , if I'm not seeing what you are please direct me to the info that seems dangerous and scary. Any thoughts on my thoughts here?:

Okay, so what may be "normal" at these temperatures, isn't what good for our civilization. Just because volcanoes erupt periodically, doesn't mean you want it happening in your backyard. The difference here is that there is (if you'd just look through the oss website) a compelling statistical correlation between the increase in temperature and increase in man made carbon dioxide throughout the industrial revolution to present day. The warming didn't cause us to burn fossil fuels. The fossil fuels produced the carbon dioxide that caused the warming trend. The information is there, on that website. (I'm short on time, so no links right now. Sorry)

Regarding thoughts on your other post. Yes, you'd think more carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures would result in more plant life, which would reduce the CO2. It's a perfectly reasonable assumption. However, we have seen massive deforestation of primary rainforest. Even when that is replaced with agriculture; per acre, the crops are nowhere near as productive as primary rainforest at converting CO2 to oxygen. Then we have logging and forest fires, which are also causing a major problem. Look at what happened to Australia last year. This year, most of California's fires were started by lightning strikes. They burned because of the hot and arid conditions, along with string winds. And it's not just this year that California has suffered fires like this. It's an increasing problem. That's massive deforestation. Colorado has seen it's two of it's top 3 largest wildfires in recorded history this year.

Here's the kicker. The forest is not regrowing in the way you would think. Hotter and more arid conditions are restricting new growth. And without the trees to provide shade for the ground, it is drying out and hardening far more easily. So if more vegetation should be growing based on the increased temperatures and CO2, where is the new growth? A decade after a fire comes through in colorado, the new growth is minimal if at all. Small Raspberry bushes are no replacement for trees. We're even seeing a reduction in snow retention in the Rockies. Less snow pack and it's melting quicker. That means less water following down major rivers. One area alone doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's happening globally.

When we look at the temperature changes, though they are small, the change is happening very quickly. What may have taken 1000 years or more, has happened in less that 150 years. That doesn't give life enough time to adapt. Life will survive on this planet, and the cycle will return eventually. But that's in the very long term. The next 50 or 100 year, for those of us now alive and the future generations is more important to me than whether cockroaches are still around in 10,000 years. Do you see what I'm saying?
 

WrongHanded

Active member
Bottom line is heat. The man-made global warming theory holds that man's activities have increased greenhouse gases trapping more heat etc etc ad nausem. Never mind the Pacific ocean emits more greenhouse gases in week than mankind does in a year and has been for eons.

Selena, I cannot disagree with your statement about oceanic greenhouse gas production, because I don't know much about it. I can look later on, but would you happen to have a source? (preferably one with some context and not from a media outlet)
 

Selena

Member
Selena, I cannot disagree with your statement about oceanic greenhouse gas production, because I don't know much about it. I can look later on, but would you happen to have a source? (preferably one with some context and not from a media outlet)

What I have heard is mostly anecdotal. But consider... the Pacific is a giant nursery for millions of tons of vegetation. When that vegetation dies & sinks it's subject to anaerobic decomposition which yields large amounts of methane. Those plants that are eaten by fish yield manure that also decomposes yielding methane. Granted most of that methane is trapped in complex hydrates but common sense will show a percentage of that methane will be released. Truthfully the point is moot as the process has been going on since life developed in the oceans and would have been present during glaciation as well the carboniferous period.
 
Top