Climate change cannot be denied

Climate changing is like the weather changing .The fact that we have geo-engineering and studies on the effects on contrails and the measured effects means little .If we could change it to our liking and some sort of a optimal state then what might that state look like in the different geographical locations around the planet . The variance in in my climate ranges from -30 to + 30 or has for my 60+ years here . Now don't hold me to those numbers because even data will show a larger variance .

Yea ,climate is changing and always has but if it stops changing then please wake me up as that would mean something different has happened and I am sure someone will have the answer as to what it was ....peace

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

However if people employed common sense then they'd realize that polluting the atmosphere is bad- it doesn't matter who's side you are on.

Where did I say I was for polluting anything? The issue is many proponents of Anthropogenic Warming wish to impose a tax to 'remedy' the situation which in and of itself is the 'big business' you mentioned.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Yes we damaging the Earth badly and yes it does not spell good news for us and yes you do not want to hear the same arguments again. But until real proof can be provided I do not see how all our different opinions are going to change anything.
Around 640 thousand years ago our atmosphere was basically the same as today after the Yellowstone eruption, and that didn’t prevent the next Ice-age. There is no denial that our 100 thousand year eccentricity cycle is the main influence on Earth’s climate. Earth will be colder when we are 3 million miles further away no matter the balances in the atmosphere. The atmosphere balance will only determine the level of the severity.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Here we go again, same 'ole same 'ole tired thread, beatin' a dead Gore, errr, I mean dead manbearpig, errr, I mean dead horse. I don't know about everybody else here, but I am not interested in your AGCC religion. A lot of us have looked at the data and I for one am not convinced that your religion is any better than any of the other religions that work by extracting money for fear.

Cheers - Dave

Pro Global Warming
Larger population will need longer growing seasons.
Think of the starving children. Thats how you spin it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Where did I say I was for polluting anything? The issue is many proponents of Anthropogenic Warming wish to impose a tax to 'remedy' the situation which in and of itself is the 'big business' you mentioned.

I'm sorry that you felt that my comment was directed at you but I can assure you that it wasn't. When I said "it doesn't matter who's side you are on" I used it as a generalization and not a personal attack.

And I do agree with you-taxes are not the answer. The question is revenue; if tidal power could provide a stable source of electricity with little expense then the bigwigs would invest at the drop of a hat, but tidal power is a risky investment then the traditionalists would not be willing to back it.

I could rant on for ages but that would be best left for another thread.

The average global temperature has remained constant for the last 16 years, winters are getting colder, sea ice is spreading, snow in places that just don't normally have snow, those places that do normally have snow are complaining there is too much, great lakes freezing over earlier, thawing later, awefull summers in Europe, climate change perhaps, global warming? still waiting for proof. and 2014 was not the hottest, NASA cooked the books on that.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

You might want to update your information database:
news.investors.com...

t a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

So basically, just as many had suspected, the "science" behind the global warming/climate change is bogus and was manufactured to produce a desired result.

Of course one of the unintended consequences has been that now, a great many people, if not a majority, are extremely suspicious of any thing put out by the scientific community and are becoming increasingly skeptical that much of science is nothing more than politicized science.

And that in and of itself is probably a result worse than anthropomorphic climate change because it contributes to more and more skepticism of anything and everything that smacks of government or science, or medicine...so...we have people who don't trust anything and don't get their brats vaccinated.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Cheers Dave but Kirk Hammett is no better than Dimebag-or is he? we can argue all day about who wields the axe better but at the end of the day they still wield the same axe. What I tried to do is highlight the absurdities of the whole argument and if You are a Kirk fan than I won't hold it against you but Dimebag has his own merits as well.

I know its a poor allegory-you might not know who Kirk or Dimebag are but if you heard them both you'd agree that they are both equally brilliant but yet people will say that one or the other is full of it.

And BTW I have no idea what AGCC is and I was not I aware it was a religion. You seem like a typical HYTR Prophet but I won't hold it against you. That was a J.O.K.E

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
I'm sorry that you felt that my comment was directed at you but I can assure you that it wasn't.

No worries, we are all good.

And I do agree with you-taxes are not the answer.

Thank you, as only the little guy will pay them.

The question is revenue; if tidal power could provide a stable source of electricity with little expense then the bigwigs would invest at the drop of a hat, but tidal power is a risky investment then the traditionalists would not be willing to back it.

I am sure that they would not back it and I would not expect them to since I would like to see lower risk, higher return investments on this subject which is why I am pulling for Lockheed and their fusion project.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Cheers Dave but Kirk Hammett is no better than Dimebag-or is he? we can argue all day about who wields the axe better but at the end of the day they still wield the same axe. What I tried to do is highlight the absurdities of the whole argument and if You are a Kirk fan than I won't hold it against you but Dimebag has his own merits as well.

I know its a poor allegory-you might not know who Kirk or Dimebag are but if you heard them both you'd agree that they are both equally brilliant but yet people will say that one or the other is full of it.

And BTW I have no idea what AGCC is and I was not I aware it was a religion. You seem like a typical HYTR Prophet but I won't hold it against you. That was a J.O.K.E

The religion of AGCC = Anthropogenic Global Climate Change = Al Gore Carbon Currency, it's a cult actually, as far as I am concerned. Yes, I enjoy Metallica LOL and play some of their tunes. (Dimebag) Darrell Abbott (who loved him his Dean's) was a great guitarist as well, unfortunately, he has rather been, DE-composing, since 2004 which is a shame.

Cheers - Dave

OCO2

This is a satellite specifically designed to measure the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere at all levels then the data is compiled into an average in graphical form. as you can see in the graphics for the time period the major concentrations are not over major production areas (save China). The data is downloadable from the site under ARIS and OCO2 data sets in XML which should allow you (if you're smarter than I am) to graph the data.



Neat video of a year in 2006 (keep in mind the DARK red is on the lower scale of the spectrum)

Back to my usual pet peeve...

Pollution isn't on the list. I am in complete agreement that pollution is the equivalent of pizzing in our bathwater and never justified.

As far as this particular thread goes, we've got basically two situations:

Climate Change: Man Made? I'm not sure, but I doubt we play all that big a part...
Fukushima: Man Made? Yeah... You betchya! There are 950+ diseases and 780+ recessive diseases never known to Man before we split the atom.

Climate Change: Can we do anything about it? I'm not sure, but I doubt we know enough to better than a 50/50 split on whether harm or good, as far a Man stepping in.
Fukushima: No... That's why threads like this don't get started.

Climate Change: Is there a chance for money to be made? Bingo!!! since the first fireworks were sent into the air during the Dust Bowl, one shyster or another has pointed out a problem and then, handily, happened to have a product to fix it! (My apologies to Ron Popeil, I am a fan and customer. No slight was intended...)
Fukushima: If, in fact, black holes do exist in Nature then Fukushima would qualify as a financial black hole with no existing answers as to the chances of ever putting a "plug in it"!

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

You might want to update your information database:
news.investors.com...

t a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

So basically, just as many had suspected, the "science" behind the global warming/climate change is bogus and was manufactured to produce a desired result.

Interesting logic here

1) Environmental activists don't want to save the planet.
2) Environmental activists want to destroy capitalism.


Therefore

Environmental Science is bogus.

And the source - perhaps a tad biased.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Only in the US does science get politicized to the point it is.

why is that? It seems like everything is a liberal plot, by the loony left nutters in an effort to depopulated he world

Fart in a small room , then tell me what we do as humans has no effect on the atmosphere .

Every city produces a heat spot and effects local climate - so it is already agreed that we do cause climate change on a micro level so how can anybody suggest there is no macro effect?

Build a wind turbine and people say it effects downwind weather patterns, smoke stacks caused acid rain.......

How anybody can claim we have zero effect on the climate astounds me.

A butterfly flaps its wings and can cause a hurricane (chaos theory) but venting 1000's of tons of gases into our atmosphere, burning vast swathes of land, tarmaccing and concreting vast areas of flood plains etc is not going to effect things LMAO


edit add this link :Anthropocene

So we have started another geological age, caused a mass extinction event not seen in 73my but haven't changed the climate then?

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Only in the US does science get politicized to the point it is.

why is that? It seems like everything is a liberal plot, by the loony left nutters in an effort to depopulated he world

I think it is because of Christianity, well mostly its fundamentalist minority. If Christian fundamentalism didn't have such a strong hold over the right then they wouldn't be so damned backwards. It's Christian fundamentalists who actively deny science, but here's the annoying part they are such a stupidly small minority of Christians. Unfortunately the dumbest people always tend to be the loudest and have the most energy to keep yelling until people listen to them. Then rational minded people pick up on their arguments and invent new and exciting ways to rationalize something that at its core is stubborn science denialism.

If the right would just STOP listening to the fundamentalist nuts, then we'd probably FINALLY break the gridlock in Congress. I guarantee it. Oh sure, friction wouldn't be gone completely; but so much of the Republican platform is based on stupidity and science denialism that once removed would give the right compromise power again, which they refuse to do because it upsets the fundamentalists.

It's becoming worrisome to me because the fundamentalism appears to only be getting worse, and the worse it gets the harder it is to sympathize with them on issues that I hold conservative viewpoints on.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
As so, you go about your business without a care in the world continuing to help pollute the planet to death.

Regardless of the cause of massive greenhouse gas build-up in the atmosphere, it is happening. Other, human driven, pollution is also destroying the biosphere and making it toxic to human and other life.

We do have the means to mitigate these destructive trends (no - tsumnamis) but not the willingness.

If you want a habitable for your children (which use to be a common motivator for most people) we need to change our life styles.

The "Global Warming isn't manmade" crap is a distraction and a selfish excuse for mental, political, economic and physical effort.

Mankind - as capitalists operate it - is destructive and exploitive. A complete waste of human energy.

What do you do if you have two or three good stewards and dozens bad actors? The people destroying the rain forest have no more concern as to their effect on the environment than the baddest offenders. They have no restoration efforts in place so when the forests are harvested, they are gone for generations. They burn what is not harvested further polluting the environment followed by soil erosion. No trees or crops.

This is not capitalism. I would call it stupidity or ignorance punctuated by greed. No land management here.

China and India are the largest polluters with one being communist and the other socialist. Neither practice capitalism and both were given a 20 year pass during the Kyoto Accords. They have no incentive to be clean or smart. Why?