The Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming 1988

[Frost HoIIow]

1 hour ago, Ed Stone said:

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. . . What has Epstein got to do with atmospheric CO2?

A comparison Ed. These people can do what they want in all spheres.

[SnowBear]

17 minutes ago, Frost HoIIow said:

A comparison Ed. These people can do what they want in all spheres.

Well, they kinda do until they get found out. Boris is an example, flatly denied any parties, yet....... 

Fortunately in the day and age of the Internet and cctv etc, it's not so easy to hide away. 

But that's drifting off the subject. 

[HighPressure]

9 hours ago, SnowBear said:

I think it's far more complex than that. If we look at the seasons, once Midsummer's day passes we don't see a gradual cool down from then to the Winter Solstice, infact the warmest part of the year is after Midsummer's day as we have just seen, July and early August often being the hottest part of the year once the heat has built up. 

So although the Milankovitch cycles may mean less radiation is reaching the surface right now, there are forcings from before, perhaps hundreds of years back, still to play out before we start to cool. 

I don't deny we have meddled in our earth's climate, but I don't think it's all down to us, or CO2. 

One big question still to be answered in the Milankovitch cycles is why it changed about 800k years ago from a fairly regular 41k year cycle of ice ages into a new cycle. 

The Mayans fairly accurately gauged precession, that cycle ended in around 2012 with the restart of their calendar, but it will be some time yet before we feel the effects of that change. 

So what exactly is going on? In my view mini deserts and heat pumps in every city getting larger yearly, the wasting of forests, changing land usage (look at just the UK, once covered in forest, now fields and buildings etc), wasteful and unnecessary journies and a whole host of other small changes being made to the earth all making a big difference. 

Its quite right we should all reduce our carbon footprint, we know its causing warming and not good, but there are so many other feedbacks and behaviours we need to look at too. 

I fear they won't be, far too much money is being made from it. 

But not all of this is down to us, the climate constantly changes, and always has done, sometimes quite rapidly. In geological terms we have been on this planet a mere blink of an eye. 

So many parameters in a chaotic system. 

What we need to do is work out how to adapt and stop behaviours which exasperate climate change, and that's beyond just CO2. 

Less air travel, less unnecessary journeys, less material greed for things we don't need, more greenery, and generally more respect for the planet we live on. 

The main gist of my post is that the use of fossil fuels and production of Co2, needs to radically be reduced before we argue the details of climate change.

The fact that fossil fuels are not limitless and the associated geopolitical issues, mean they really have to be phased out. Everything that lives and breaths on earth has an impact upon it to some extent. Man has the ability to destroy itself of that I have no doubt, but I do not believe we can have a permanent impact, as we would be long gone before that could happen.

Oceans are the biggest driver of climate, their take up of Co2 plays a major part of the process. In fact the 1st ever post I made on netweather was about the Ozone layer and 'possible' impacts on climate change and extreme weather events, that was back in 2005. I believe the climate is changing, it is warming, but I have never really been confident with the idea that it was simply down to mans Co2 output. It also intrigues me that the time line for Ozone depletion fits pretty well with the advent of increased extreme weather events?

[Downburst]

2 hours ago, Bristle Si said:

Agreed, Ed.

My comment was more aimed at peeps across SM, the pundits on tv, etc that scoff at the less-educated (whatever that actually means?!) saying (to paraphrase) they're too ignorant to understand.

The 2 factors that put me off being 100% in agreement with Climate Change activists and scientists, are (1) "We're in an emergency and we're all going to die, because of..."

And (2) Most of the disruptors, Stop Oil, XR, etc are mainly well-to-do trad mid class, who've been on jollies across the world using planes, etc. One of the Stop Oil peeps, this week, wizzed around Aus, Bali, Far East, etc a couple of years ago on one of those gap years! Obs a 'gap' from worrying about the environ and climate change 

You see, one's own SM cannot hide the truth

The likes of the BBC and the Guardian etc etc are certainly part of the problem in two ways; 1. Their smug delivery of the message, increasingly messaged in the most extraordinarily dumbed down way, to the extent it’s patronising. In fact John cravens news round was more adult oriented then the evening news nowadays. 2. They haven’t the guts to tell people the facts as we know them and detail like proper journalists what’s on offer as solutions so people can make up their own minds, this allows the average world wide politician to get away with ignoring our increasingly damaged planet.

we simply have to live a less polluting life and there are many solutions on offer, ones which should rebalance the inequality that is ever growing inter western nations and between 1st world and the rest. We can do this, it’s a choice. Just need people to get the facts.

[Mixer 85]

Personally I agree to a large extent with what @Muckais saying RE climate change and how it’s portrayed by the media. It is not elitist for him to have those views, it’s simply critical analysis of a subject he’s passionate about and well versed in.

I don’t think there’s many of us on here with our interests and knowledge in weather/climate who could believe or even remotely take seriously the level of hyperbolic garbage that’s dished out to the masses by the MSM regarding climate change. Thing is though, it’s not aimed at us. It’s aimed at the vast majority of people whom have little to no interest in the subject. Most people will read the headlines and take it at face value. They won’t question the sources or delve deeper to establish its plausibility. 
Question is….why try terrify the masses with this rubbish. Is it to sell more newspapers?…or is it to sell faulty policies that funnel public money into lucrative businesses?…perhaps it is to further the WEF globalist agenda. I’m not going to weigh in on that personally because I simply don’t know. All I do know is that the hyperbole has gotten to fever pitch over the past couple of years, meanwhile the climate hasn’t changed all that much. 
I know many here accept the CO2 hypothesis but personally I’m not buying it. The science isn’t settled. If the narrative is accepted there is no shortage of material to support that claim but the same is equally true if one decides not to accept it. There is no shortage of material to contradict the narrative. 
Also worth noting is that the IPCC is a political organisation. They hire the scientists but ultimately they have the final say on what’s published, how it’s worded and what the press release says. “Code Red” is a political statement, not a scientific statement. The only alarming scenarios presented by the most recent assessment are derived from computer models that poorly represent reality. 
 

I’ll leave this for giggles….have you ever wondered how everywhere is warming faster than everywhere else???

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Mixer 85

[Downburst]

Meanwhile Fox News has John Christy, Alabama Baptist Missionary (Jesus controls the weather, especially in America) and the man Trump tried to put in charge of NOAA (Can you imagine how close we were to that?)  on FOX with his balloon data and Laura Ingraham can have an irritating attack on science, totally skewed of course "best Graph in years" - no Climate Change at all, look at these two lines. Half of the few Americans that watch the news watch this and it's settled. Meanwhile the liberal Press, Shock, Horror, every storm is Climate Change, every heavy Rain etc and they are putting people off. Can't show the science as people are too thick in their opinion. 

 

 

[Climate Man]

11 hours ago, Mixer 85 said:

Personally I agree to a large extent with what @Muckais saying RE climate change and how it’s portrayed by the media. It is not elitist for him to have those views, it’s simply critical analysis of a subject he’s passionate about and well versed in.

I don’t think there’s many of us on here with our interests and knowledge in weather/climate who could believe or even remotely take seriously the level of hyperbolic garbage that’s dished out to the masses by the MSM regarding climate change. Thing is though, it’s not aimed at us. It’s aimed at the vast majority of people whom have little to no interest in the subject. Most people will read the headlines and take it at face value. They won’t question the sources or delve deeper to establish its plausibility. 
Question is….why try terrify the masses with this rubbish. Is it to sell more newspapers?…or is it to sell faulty policies that funnel public money into lucrative businesses?…perhaps it is to further the WEF globalist agenda. I’m not going to weigh in on that personally because I simply don’t know. All I do know is that the hyperbole has gotten to fever pitch over the past couple of years, meanwhile the climate hasn’t changed all that much. 
I know many here accept the CO2 hypothesis but personally I’m not buying it. The science isn’t settled. If the narrative is accepted there is no shortage of material to support that claim but the same is equally true if one decides not to accept it. There is no shortage of material to contradict the narrative. 
Also worth noting is that the IPCC is a political organisation. They hire the scientists but ultimately they have the final say on what’s published, how it’s worded and what the press release says. “Code Red” is a political statement, not a scientific statement. The only alarming scenarios presented by the most recent assessment are derived from computer models that poorly represent reality. 
 

I’ll leave this for giggles….have you ever wondered how everywhere is warming faster than everywhere else???

 

What I have noticed is that many of those that are terrified by climate change are the same people that did not trust the science with Covid......

[Methuselah]

1 hour ago, Climate Man said:

What I have noticed is that many of those that are terrified by climate change are the same people that did not trust the science with Covid......

Also, I've noticed many of them (not all, I hasten to add!) adhere to some pretty peculiar political mores; in particular toward extremes of either left- or right-wing tenets. So, maybe the ability to ignore objective reasoning/research and favour rigidly held dogmas (be those dogmas political, religious or both) is, at least in part, psychological?

[HighPressure]

11 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Also, I've noticed many of them (not all, I hasten to add!) adhere to some pretty peculiar political mores; in particular toward extremes of either left- or right-wing tenets. So, maybe the ability to ignore objective reasoning/research and favour rigidly held dogmas (be those dogmas political, religious or both) is, at least in part, psychological?

I would be one of those I guess 

Seriously isn't those who challenge mainstream thinking that tend to make the discoveries, especially in science. The likes of Copernicus and Columbus. would have been considered completely mad if forum such as this existed back in their day.

Science is to be challenged, if only to be proved wrong.

 

[Methuselah]

9 hours ago, HighPressure said:

I would be one of those I guess 

Seriously isn't those who challenge mainstream thinking that tend to make the discoveries, especially in science. The likes of Copernicus and Columbus. would have been considered completely mad if forum such as this existed back in their day.

Science is to be challenged, if only to be proved wrong.

 

Including elementary mechanics and the 'laws' of thermodynamics? IMO, anyone capable of putting up a robust scientific challenge to those things, would need to have the brain power of an Einstein, Hawking, Galileo or, indeed, a Copernicus. And I see none of those intellects among the 'AGW is just another conspiracy' brigade?

[lassie23]

We are DOOMED!

[Methuselah]

Actually, @HighPressure, having given it some more thought, it wasn't science that was overturned by Copernicus, Galileo & Brahe et al, it was a mish-mash of Aristotelian/Platonic dogma co-opted by the Roman Catholic Church: Aristotle's quant notion (that rocks fall to earth because that's where they belong!) was music to the ears of those whose very existence depended on expecting people to believe in the unbelievable?

But what we have now is very different: it is based on observations and repeatable experimentation -- there is no sleight-of-hand involved, and we can all access the data (most of the time).

And, so, back to Climate Change: Humankind is pumping its waste into the atmosphere, in just the same way that those archaic land-plants did all those millions of years ago? The only difference is that plants' waste is O2 whilst ours is CO2; the 'balance' between animals and plants took millions of years to achieve, and we, as in humans, are the only extant species with the know-how to bugger the whole thing up?

But we don't have to, do we (we are not mindless plants!)? We also have the know-how to no longer take the world for granted.

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by Ed Stone

[SnowBear]

7 hours ago, Ed Stone said:

Actually, @HighPressure, having given it some more thought, it wasn't science that was overturned by Copernicus, Galileo & Brahe et al, it was a mish-mash of Aristotelian/Platonic dogma co-opted by the Roman Catholic Church: Aristotle's quant notion (that rocks fall to earth because that's where they belong!) was music to the ears of those whose very existence depended on expecting people to believe in the unbelievable?

But what we have now is very different: it is based on observations and repeatable experimentation -- there is no sleight-of-hand involved, and we can all access the data (most of the time).

And, so, back to Climate Change: Humankind is pumping its waste into the atmosphere, in just the same way that those archaic land-plants did all those millions of years ago? The only difference is that plants' waste is O2 whilst ours is CO2; the 'balance' between animals and plants took millions of years to achieve, and we, as in humans, are the only extant species with the know-how to bugger the whole thing up?

But we don't have to, do we (we are not mindless plants!)? We also have the know-how to no longer take the world for granted.

 

With the know how to bugger it up... Or perhaps that's our role? To increase Co2 so plants can take over the world? Hehe

In truth Mother Nature has seen far higher temperatures than we see today, and far colder, life survived, she doesn't care, she can exist in any state in between.

We need a fairly small window of temperature ranges to be able to survive for any length of time, and to do that we need to learn to adapt, and also learn to balance what we do. 

If we get wiped out I can quite well believe life will go on, in a short few thousand of years our tracks will soon begin to be covered over. 

We have consequences now, but in the long age of the world we are inconsequential. 

We should all tread as light as possible on the earth, take a little as we need (note need, not want) and try and give back, plant trees, look after special echo-systems, cut back on the mass industrial and personal waste. 

I hold little hope of any of that though while the world is driven by money and greed.