Is man made climate change real?
- Thread starter skegpro
- Start date
- Staff
- #122
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 48,012
- Reaction score
- 32,148
- Location
- Edmonton/Sherwood Park
- Website
- www.bumpertobumper.ca
- Staff
- #123
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 48,012
- Reaction score
- 32,148
- Location
- Edmonton/Sherwood Park
- Website
- www.bumpertobumper.ca
TAKEN FROM A DIFFERENT ARTICLE IN RESPONSE TO THE ONE ABOVE:
As someone who has his doubts on anthropogenic global warming, ozone depletion was indeed real. Elimination of use of CFCs did resolve the ozone reduction issue over the poles over the last several decades. I worked on solving this real, quantifiable problem by developing alternatives to CFCs and HCFCs. Neither acid rain nor ozone depletion are directly related to GWP. Until the models show that CO2, an essential gas that enables photosynthesis, has a higher influence than H2O vapor on GWP, I don't see a current need to turn the global economy upside down vilifying carbon based fuels. Conceptually CO2 in our atmosphere can be extracted and recycled from the atmosphere using solar energy combined with water electrolysis to liberate hydrogen and the reverse water gas shift reaction to produce gasoline fuels that could be burned again and again to generate CO2 and H20 which are recycled. I read recently that Audi is working on such a process at a facility in Switzerland. Imagine not having to change the current fuel supply systems significantly.
LennyR
Active VIP Member
Allotting funds for this kind of initiative or research makes a ton of sense to me. Hell of a lot more than the pie in the sky "no more fossil fuels" group of earth savers .
- Staff
- #125
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 48,012
- Reaction score
- 32,148
- Location
- Edmonton/Sherwood Park
- Website
- www.bumpertobumper.ca
right??? Exactly!!!!
LennyR
Active VIP Member
deaner
Active VIP Member
Exactly. THAT ^^ is the type of stuff that they need to be working on. I think the current schemes would recieve alot more support if they made any sense.
pfi572
Active VIP Member
Found this post/article....
When pollsters realized that the public and elected officials weren't buying global warming as a concept or policy, in a brilliant political move, they came up with the phrase "climate change." This helped sell the theory of man-made global warming. Weather is politicized, and computer models are only predictions that have been used as pawns in elections and justifying increased government budgets. The global warming/climate change (GWCC) narrative has made Al Gore a rich man peddling unrealized fear.
In January 2012, sixteen eminent scientists published an article in the Wall Street Journal, titled, "No Need to Panic About Global Warming." If mankind is causing global warming, then how do you explain this?
Today's CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2 the Earth should have been boiling.
It seems more reasonable to be agnostic based upon this fact:
According to the Climate.gov website, the current global average temperature is roughly 'shy of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. About 55 million years ago – just after the age of the Dinosaurs – the era known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) saw average global temps as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit.
As humans showed up only about 100,000 years ago, how do you account for the PETM era? Supposedly, 97% of scientists agree man is the cause of catastrophic GWCC, when in fact that statement is false. Moreover:
A recent study reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that just 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a climate change crisis. A majority of the 1,077 respondents in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent GWCC.
What if you believe the 97% scientist debate? Then why hasn't this information been widely reported?
The media ignore a petition on the Internet signed by more than 31,000 scientists, including 9,029 PhDs, 7,157 with a master's of science, and 12, 715 with a bachelor of science degree, all of whom dispute the global warming thesis.
The GWCC narrative also took a hit when a March 2019 NASA study found that the famous Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland was starting to grow again "after retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually since 2013" but is growing the past two years (2016–2018). Past natural variability seems to be the cause instead of vetting the scientific consensus that "demands to prove that rising CO2 is causing an effect like melting Greenland ice."
Are there other factors that determine Earth's heating and cooling other than CO2? According to Professor A. Balasubramanian from the Center for Advanced Studies in Earth Sciences, University of Mysore:
The climate of a region (or whole earth) is determined by radiation energy of the sun, and its distribution and temporal fluctuations. The long-term state of the atmosphere is a function of variety of interacting elements. They are: Solar radiation, Air masses, Pressure systems (cyclone belts), Ocean Currents, Topography.
CO2 is a factor that influences regional and global temperatures, and there are considerable questions about the role it plays in recent warming trends in the 20th and 21st centuries. Climate scientist Vijay Jayaraj cites these weather facts to make the case that the Earth is actually in danger of global cooling:
There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Between 2000 and 2018, global temperature showed no significant increase despite a steep increase in carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources. The same was the case between the years 1940 and 1970. When carbon dioxide concentration increases at a constant and steady rate and temperature doesn't follow the pattern, we can be certain that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global temperature.
MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading climatologists, also believes that CO2 is not the main factor in GWCC, figuring that GWCC is a dicey proposition. He questions whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or somewhere in between — in other words, Dr. Lindzen is a skeptic because he doesn't know if CO2 is the main driver of weather. Climate scientists acknowledge that life on Earth happens because of the Earth's positioning in the solar system to the sun and "that the sun is the biggest influencer and driver of global temperature."
NASA's original homepage accepted "the sun's impact on our climate system." But NASA succumbed to the GWCC madness and took it down for public consumption. Freedom of speech and scientific debate have been squelched. CO2 is now the leader in the GWCC debate sweepstakes and political discussion while avoiding how the sun affects weather and global temperature. This is a huge mistake for these reasons:
Central Europe, for example, temperature changes since 1990 coincided more with the changes in solar activity than with atmospheric CO2 concentration. The same has been true globally, and across centuries. The Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and Dalton Minimum (1790–1830) — periods of low solar activity — were responsible for the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age. Likewise increased solar activity in the Roman Warm Period (~250 B.C. to A.D. 400) and Medieval Warm Period (~A.D. 950–1250) brought warmer temperatures on Earth. Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers affirm the overwhelming impact of solar activity on Earth's temperature.
The question should be asked: are we looking at the wrong phenomenon, and should we be debating global cooling? A number of climate scientists believe that "another major cooling" is likely to happen in this century. Despicably and treacherously, GWCC has overtaken all rational discussions about all forms of energy, electricity, and the weather. If you question GWCC, you are a "climate denier," or worse, you're viciously attacked without fully vetting the issue of whether or not man is causing anthropogenic GWCC.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/questioning_global_warming.html#ixzz5liTWbOJN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
When pollsters realized that the public and elected officials weren't buying global warming as a concept or policy, in a brilliant political move, they came up with the phrase "climate change." This helped sell the theory of man-made global warming. Weather is politicized, and computer models are only predictions that have been used as pawns in elections and justifying increased government budgets. The global warming/climate change (GWCC) narrative has made Al Gore a rich man peddling unrealized fear.
In January 2012, sixteen eminent scientists published an article in the Wall Street Journal, titled, "No Need to Panic About Global Warming." If mankind is causing global warming, then how do you explain this?
Today's CO2 concentrations worldwide average about 380 parts per million. This level of CO2 concentration is trivial compared with the concentrations during earlier geologic periods. For example, 460 million years ago, during the Ordovician Period, CO2 concentrations were 4,400 ppm, and temperatures then were about the same as they are today. With such high levels of CO2 the Earth should have been boiling.
It seems more reasonable to be agnostic based upon this fact:
According to the Climate.gov website, the current global average temperature is roughly 'shy of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. About 55 million years ago – just after the age of the Dinosaurs – the era known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) saw average global temps as high as 73 degrees Fahrenheit.
As humans showed up only about 100,000 years ago, how do you account for the PETM era? Supposedly, 97% of scientists agree man is the cause of catastrophic GWCC, when in fact that statement is false. Moreover:
A recent study reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that just 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a climate change crisis. A majority of the 1,077 respondents in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent GWCC.
What if you believe the 97% scientist debate? Then why hasn't this information been widely reported?
The media ignore a petition on the Internet signed by more than 31,000 scientists, including 9,029 PhDs, 7,157 with a master's of science, and 12, 715 with a bachelor of science degree, all of whom dispute the global warming thesis.
The GWCC narrative also took a hit when a March 2019 NASA study found that the famous Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland was starting to grow again "after retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually since 2013" but is growing the past two years (2016–2018). Past natural variability seems to be the cause instead of vetting the scientific consensus that "demands to prove that rising CO2 is causing an effect like melting Greenland ice."
Are there other factors that determine Earth's heating and cooling other than CO2? According to Professor A. Balasubramanian from the Center for Advanced Studies in Earth Sciences, University of Mysore:
The climate of a region (or whole earth) is determined by radiation energy of the sun, and its distribution and temporal fluctuations. The long-term state of the atmosphere is a function of variety of interacting elements. They are: Solar radiation, Air masses, Pressure systems (cyclone belts), Ocean Currents, Topography.
CO2 is a factor that influences regional and global temperatures, and there are considerable questions about the role it plays in recent warming trends in the 20th and 21st centuries. Climate scientist Vijay Jayaraj cites these weather facts to make the case that the Earth is actually in danger of global cooling:
There is poor correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature. Between 2000 and 2018, global temperature showed no significant increase despite a steep increase in carbon dioxide emissions from anthropogenic sources. The same was the case between the years 1940 and 1970. When carbon dioxide concentration increases at a constant and steady rate and temperature doesn't follow the pattern, we can be certain that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global temperature.
MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading climatologists, also believes that CO2 is not the main factor in GWCC, figuring that GWCC is a dicey proposition. He questions whether the Earth is warming, cooling, or somewhere in between — in other words, Dr. Lindzen is a skeptic because he doesn't know if CO2 is the main driver of weather. Climate scientists acknowledge that life on Earth happens because of the Earth's positioning in the solar system to the sun and "that the sun is the biggest influencer and driver of global temperature."
NASA's original homepage accepted "the sun's impact on our climate system." But NASA succumbed to the GWCC madness and took it down for public consumption. Freedom of speech and scientific debate have been squelched. CO2 is now the leader in the GWCC debate sweepstakes and political discussion while avoiding how the sun affects weather and global temperature. This is a huge mistake for these reasons:
Central Europe, for example, temperature changes since 1990 coincided more with the changes in solar activity than with atmospheric CO2 concentration. The same has been true globally, and across centuries. The Maunder Minimum (1645–1715) and Dalton Minimum (1790–1830) — periods of low solar activity — were responsible for the coldest periods of the Little Ice Age. Likewise increased solar activity in the Roman Warm Period (~250 B.C. to A.D. 400) and Medieval Warm Period (~A.D. 950–1250) brought warmer temperatures on Earth. Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers affirm the overwhelming impact of solar activity on Earth's temperature.
The question should be asked: are we looking at the wrong phenomenon, and should we be debating global cooling? A number of climate scientists believe that "another major cooling" is likely to happen in this century. Despicably and treacherously, GWCC has overtaken all rational discussions about all forms of energy, electricity, and the weather. If you question GWCC, you are a "climate denier," or worse, you're viciously attacked without fully vetting the issue of whether or not man is causing anthropogenic GWCC.
Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/04/questioning_global_warming.html#ixzz5liTWbOJN
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
ATV Rancher
Active VIP Member
Stg2Suby
Active VIP Member
Stg2Suby
Active VIP Member
WARNING: melting permafrost is going to cost $70,000,000,000,000 economic damage
https://globalnews.ca/news/5199793/thawing-permafrost-economic-consequences/
HOWEVER if we all pay the required carbon taxes its only going to cost $25,000,000,000,000
So if that hasn't scared you into a Carbon Tax Believer then I guess we'll try again with another article tomorrow.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5199793/thawing-permafrost-economic-consequences/
HOWEVER if we all pay the required carbon taxes its only going to cost $25,000,000,000,000
So if that hasn't scared you into a Carbon Tax Believer then I guess we'll try again with another article tomorrow.
retiredpop
Active VIP Member
We are in serious global trouble with idiots like this in positions of authority.
I think they actually believe this sh*t!
I’m getting old pop. I try to brush off the tinfoil hat but my gut kinda tells me I’ll see a war before I’m dust. Civil/world or otherwise. If I can help cool. If I can’t.....not sure. Pray to a deity lm unsure about I guess.
jhurkot
Active VIP Member
I don't trust climate scientists at all. When I want the real cold hard truth I log in to facebook and research the memes.
Mike270412
Golden Boy
SAF and PCF ?????? They keep making up new terms.Sounds pretty scary.
"Researchers explored simulations of complex, state-of-the-art physical models to quantify the strength of the permafrost carbon feedback (PCF), driven by the additional carbon released from thawing permafrost, and of the surface albedo feedback (SAF), driven by the extra solar energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface as the white sea ice and land snow cover declines, exposing darker ocean and land.
The paper says nearly all climate policy studies to date implied a constant SAF and zero PCF."
"Researchers explored simulations of complex, state-of-the-art physical models to quantify the strength of the permafrost carbon feedback (PCF), driven by the additional carbon released from thawing permafrost, and of the surface albedo feedback (SAF), driven by the extra solar energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface as the white sea ice and land snow cover declines, exposing darker ocean and land.
The paper says nearly all climate policy studies to date implied a constant SAF and zero PCF."
- Staff
- #139
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 48,012
- Reaction score
- 32,148
- Location
- Edmonton/Sherwood Park
- Website
- www.bumpertobumper.ca
I just heard on 630 ched, that a new york city, city councilor wants to ban glass/steel buildings, because it is adding to the greenhouse effect with the glare from the windows etc..... When will it stop!!!
Stg2Suby
Active VIP Member
I think "albedo" is a type of spaghetti sauce, definitely won't be supporting it any longer
Similar threads
