Climate change

you can play with words as you wish (if you prefer "human induced climate change deniers" is indeed better), it does not change facts. Indeed everybody knows climate is a changing thing, particularly scientists, and their study of past changes indeed showed the critical importance of CO2 levels in temperature variations of the planet. The fact that climate has natural variations is not proving in any way that the current changes are not man induced, particularly given that all the factors creating natural variations of CO2 levels (volcanism, solar cycles and so on) has been shown not to be able to account for the current CO2 levels.
I don't know wither what conjecture you are talking about regarding water vapour, do you think scientists don't know about water vapour effect and did not include it in their analysis, the thing is a higher amount of water vapour is a consequence of the warming cause by CO2 (if we have to go in the "Everybody knows" things, i guess everybody knows too that when temperature is higher, water evaporates more...) and increases its effects. "that is the actual truth"? from who? where is the overwhelming body of evidences/publications about it required to make it a "truth" in the scientific sense when more than 90% of publications on the topic agree with a man induced warming?
Yes many of the climate deniers are scientists, however, very few are indeed qualified in climate science (and those who are are mostly funded by oil industry, the "follow the money argument" can ALSO be applied to deniers).
The end of your message is just wishful thinking based on nothing, the warming is a real observed thing and it can only be explained by our emissions, As for those who wi have to disappear, i can only tell that all i know from biology, science in general and history is that it is those who don't adapt to changes who dissappear (i'm not saying here that humans as a species will disappear, scientist never predicted "the end of the world").
 
MichaelS said:
There is no such thing as a 'climate change denier'' Everyone knows that the climate is capable of changing, is probably in constant flux - and therefore always changing somewhat. Many of your so called ''deniers'' are scientists. Also there are very few that deny co2 is a greenhouse gas. The conjecture is how sensitive the planet is to co2 when compared to water vapour. Most observations and together with failed model predictions, point to .....not very much at all!. That is the actual truth.
So much for your shallow meaningless comment.

Climate alarmism has reached it's peak. It has shot itself in the foot. Sure there will be continued scare tactics and thrashing about for a while, but generally, people are starting to wise up to the bullshit. Those who have invested their entire reputations on this doomsday story (and there are MANY, MANY of them) will have to quietly disappear into the shadows never to be seen again. Al Gore will need to be the first, followed by half of Hollywood.
Click to expand...

My kids, for example, don't remember the scare tactics I got as a tween/teen. Hence, I have to be the one reminding them of history, and the inaccurate predictions (key point). Every new crop of elementary school kids will get the same spiel. Probably starting younger and younger.
 
your prediciton anecdote is like saying you can't trust any priest because some have been convinced of abusing children
 
It's like saying inaccurate predictions shouldn't be the basis of law and policy.
 
oh scientists make laws and policy? since when? (again last time i looked, CO2 emissions were still on the increase when scientist ask to stop them for 50 years, that relativise a lot the supposed power of scientists) Again an innacurate prediction (that i never heard of so are you sure it was not just sensasionalism from a media or something?) does not mean that any prediction is necessarily false (particularly given the huge amount of evidences accumulated since then to refine the models) and predictions whatever they say anyway don't change the observed changes
 
Last edited:
leatherback said:
The thing is that climate change deniers do not believe in physics, because scientists are all corrupt. There is no causal relation between the greenhouse effect and CO2.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have ever established that the climate change deniers don't believe in physics. Equating evidence so far presented with physics is quite a stretch to me. By and large I believe in our knowledge of physics within the framework of the known universe, but that doesn't mean I buy the evidence presented so far for climate change. There is much to look into before I get to that point.
 
I think the point he trying to make is that physicists or chemists are using the very same "toolbox", knowledge and experimental and intellectual methods as climate scientists do, climate studying is just chemistry applied to earth and atmosphere dynamics. If you don't cast doubt on the validity of the work of physicist or chemist, you can't doubt the validity of the work of climate scientists.
 
Global warming is a natural cycle if the earth. I am sure they human activity has accelerated the process but not to the extent you might think. Life thrives. Co2 builds and causes hearing. Life n dwindles until co2 levels drop. Then it starts all over again. My point is that may be me to delay the inevitable. But that is the best we can expect.
 
It's comforting to know that so many non scientists/regular citizens are spending as much time and effort studying the climate problem as the climate scientists who have devoted their lives to it.
 
papymandarin said:
I think the point he trying to make is that physicists or chemists are using the very same "toolbox", knowledge and experimental and intellectual methods as climate scientists do, climate studying is just chemistry applied to earth and atmosphere dynamics. If you don't cast doubt on the validity of the work of physicist or chemist, you can't doubt the validity of the work of climate scientists.
Click to expand...
Frankly I don't accept this level of generalization from anyone. I apply the same scrutiny on all work, be it from physicists, chemists, engineers, or environmentalists, or anyone for that matter. I don't discount or believe any work until it is proven, reviewed and replicated if need be by peers.
PS: I still remember the 1989 Fleischmann-Pons hoax. We were all so excited back then.
 
Cajunrider said:
While we are at it, why don't we fix the air quality in Europe, China, India, Pakistan, African countries, etc. It kills far more of us before climate change from CO2 does right now.
Click to expand...

And as you seem to promote, start from the root. For you, that's Louisiana.

What's the carbon footprint for a citizen in Louisiana compared to one in the places you mentioned?

And why is the "system" working that way? If you dare say that it works when so many people are below the poverty line, and even dying, even in our "developed countries", you must be a trumper, or a trumpist, or a trumpinof - lie, swindling, demagogy being the "Bible": imbeciles will always believe in sacred texts, whether they were written when Adam and Eve rose dinosaurs (Wednesday or Thursday, I can never remember) or posted 1 minute ago on Twitter by the golden calf of the moment.
 
if you don't discount or believe any work before it is proven reviewed and replicated if need be by peers (there is more than 20000 of them in scientific litterature), then you have to agree with man induced climate change, that's exactly what i was saying lol
and again i don't see how one hoax allows to dismiss all the rest of a body of science ( moreover hoax and fraud also happen on the climate deniers side, so why should they be more believable?) Particularly when this is hoax from just one experimental team whose supposed resuts were hyped by mainstream medias (and even if they ended publishing it in a lesser scientific journal it was refused by Nature) was tested and proven wrong by the other scientists of their field, that's the very process of science at work and why one study is meaningless. This is just showing that science is indeed self correcting its errors, and hoaxes the results of a press to eager to release sensational news before a scientific consensus has been reached.
 
Last edited:
The actual hard science that is not based on computer models, but real hard work, called the Vostok Ice Core Samples, proves that increased CO2 levels lag behind global temperature increases....by over 100 years.
In other words, not only is climate change not caused by CO2, but it is a natural occurrence on Earth, that happens wether humans are here or not....if you believe ancient people didn't have high technology of sorts, that is....but I digress...
 
"papymandarin,
Click to expand...


natural variations of CO2 levels (volcanism, solar cycles and so on) has been shown not to be able to account for the current CO2 levels.
Click to expand...

No one is denying that.
I don't know wither what conjecture you are talking about regarding water vapour, do you think scientists don't know about water vapour effect and did not include it in their analysis,
Click to expand...

Water vapour accounts for 95% of all greenhouse gases. Co2 about 3%. Human contribution probably less that half of that 3%. Yet you believe them when they say that the planet is so sensitive that a 1.5% addition has tipped the balance? Please!

the thing is a higher amount of water vapour is a consequence of the warming cause by CO2
Click to expand...

Once again there IS NO PROOF that co2 is causing extra warming. It's a hypothesis.

(if we have to go in the "Everybody knows" things, i guess everybody knows too that when temperature is higher, water evaporates more...) and increases its effects. "that is the actual truth"? from who? where is the overwhelming body of evidences/publications about it required to make it a "truth" in the scientific sense when more than 90% of publications on the topic agree with a man induced warming?
Click to expand...

I don't have any idea what you are saying/asking here!


Yes many of the climate deniers are scientists, however, very few are indeed qualified in climate science
Click to expand...

''Climate science'' is a conglomeration of many different fields. Oceanography. Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy, Geophysics, etc etc. Almost none of the Climate scientists are experts in all these fields. The vast majority of them are computer modelers and we all know (hopefully) what a hopelessly ridiculous pursuit that is when you deal with a non-linear, chaotic natural system and that's even when you know all the variables to enter into the model which you don't. The best that any ''climate scientist'' can do is guess. Most of the guesses so far have been wrong.


The end of your message is just wishful thinking based on nothing
Click to expand...

Nothing? The latest report of impeding catastrophe from the IPPC got mainly yawns. The markets did not flinch. The scare is dying a slow death.

scientist never predicted "the end of the world").
Click to expand...

30 years ago scientists (I mean who else could come up with the theory apart from scientists studying the subject?) speaking of the Maldives said that ''A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next thirty years''

Completely cover! Wow! I would say that would be the end of the world for those people wouldn't you?

Well my God! That is right now!

Here is a live cam of the Maldives......


That's just one example. There are many others. They are still making these claims. Have you learned anything yet?
 
I am 63 years old. I have been doing bonsai for more than half of my life. In my pursuit of bonsai much of my work relates to reading the 'weather". when to move trees, how much to water, when to increase and when to cut back.

I admit that my climate has changed in my locality which I have lived in my entire life. My climate has changed enough recently that I do thing now that I have never done in my life. many of these things for me, have been life threatening to my trees, and in some cases has caused me to lose trees in stupidity of dealing with these climactic weather changes.

You might ask, "Keppler, with your great age and longivity in the hobby what exactly have you experienced"?

Like many I have experienced reduced winters and longer hotter summers. More triple digit days in a row and prolonged nights never dipping below 80 degrees as a low for the evening. Soils dry even at night and watering has been needed even at night creating havoc for mold and fungus issues that must be dealt with but never cured.

You might also ask, "Keppler, when did you notice this extreme change.

My first recollection of the increased temps started around 2011 here. Until that point my summers were hot but never triple digits for more than four or five days in a row with relief in between. This summer we had June, July, and August over 102 every single day in a row never getting double digit relief till Sept.

If a person wants to know about weather, you ask a meteorologist about that. I know several. I live in Farming country and weather is a way of life here. Billions of dollars a year is dependent on the weather and if someone screws up people don't eat. Many I know are in bonsai. Many of them are my friends for those that wish to know about my friend list.

So Keppler, what did they say?

From a meteorologist's point of view, the Earths climate is fueled by three things. The Sun, the Moon and the Oceans. Of all of them the Ocean is the most important. Why I asked, because the oceans provide the moisture to cool the earths atmosphere thru condensation, the currents in the oceans move warm water out and cool water in and vice versa. When that gets screwed up, the weather as a whole gets screwed up.



I asked what kinds of things screw up the effects of the oceans on the Earth. Natural conditions and man made conditions.

I asked for an example of natural conditions that could screw up the oceans.

Coincidentally;

In the South Pacific,
Sept 4, 2010 Darfield, Canterbury New Zealand Mag. 7.1 - 8 kilometer tear in the earths crust below the ocean. Upheavals and ridges.
Feb. 22, 2011 Christchurch, Canterbury New Zealand Mag. 6.3 killing 185 people, again doing massive damage to the ocean floor
June 13, 2011 Christchurch, Canterbury New Zealand Mag 6.4 again doing more damage to the ocean floor.
The island of New Zealand is moving at a rate of 33mm a year on its fault. That means since the first earthquake the Island has moved 10 inches. Think this has an effect on the ocean currents?

North Pacific;
March 11, 2011 Sindai, Japan mag. 9.0/9.1 The earthquake caused by the Pacific plate thrusting under the North American plate opened up a 185 kilometer tear in the earths crust with plates shifting 18 meters and a vertical rise of 3 meters of the North american plate causing the huge tsunami. The entire island of Honshu moving 8 feet and the Earth being knocked off it's axis by 4 inches.

What did this do?

The Northern Pacific ocean moves in a clockwise fashion with warm waters working their way up the coast of Russia, China and Japan to the Aleutian Islands and cooling of the waters. The cold water then travels down the Pacific Northwest, bringing with it the air stream in the upper atmosphere following the ocean currents. Ever wonder why Washington State and Oregon are so green? Thats cause it rains there more than most places in the USA. The cool water follows down the coast into California bringing with it the wonderful coastal temps that make the California coast some of the most expensive real estate in the world. The waters begin to warm near San Diego and head west to Japan again.

So what happened?

The Sindai earthquake caused a MAJOR shift in the ocean currents in the North Pacific, and I suppose that the South Pacific may experience the same things. The San Andreas fault on the coast side moves North while the other side moves South. The northern trek moves at about 45 mm a year. That piece of land anchoring the Golden Gate bridge has moved 10 and a half inches since Sindai. I wonder if the outline of the coast has a any effect on currents?

Great White sharks were never seen north of Rosorita Beach, Baja, California before Sindai. Now Great Whites are inhabiting the waters of half the coast of California to San Francisco Bay. Great White attacks are more numerous in the last two years due to the warmer waters. The water from the Aleutians are not performing as they were pre Sindai. The cool water is flowing west and to Hawaii before it makes it's way down the coast allowing the Great Whites the warm water and with it, the loss of the cooling effect we had in Central California.

I asked what kind of man made things would cause changes in the weather.

I was told that the last twenty years of building in the USA is also contributing to green house effects due to heat sinks in building roofs, pavement and concrete. During the day the roads and parking lots heat up and at night they give up the heat due to thermo dynamics, building large amounts of heat at night when it should be cooling down.

Also things like the huge Palm Islands in Dubai. The first opened in June of 2013. Now there are like five or six and they jut out into the ocean over 8 kilometers. The effects on the reefs and the currents in the bay have been greatly affected and is now causing more and more drought and reduced fresh water supplies.

For me, I think the coincidence is staggering. I am not a scientist, I just feel it necessary to give this POV from a source that may be on to something. All I know is that what I experience in my small part of the world will not be fixed with reduced Co2. I need another earthquake to put the ocean floor back where it belongs!!!

I recently heard from Grouper52 that a recent earthquake in Indonesia tilted the Island 2 inches. Does anyone attribute any of this to weather or is this not political enough cause it can't be stopped or controlled???
 
You might ask, "Keppler, with your great age and longivity in the hobby what exactly have you experienced"?

Like many I have experienced reduced winters and longer hotter summers. More triple digit days in a row and prolonged nights never dipping below 80 degrees as a low for the evening. Soils dry even at night and watering has been needed even at
Click to expand...

Yes. Me too. That's because you grew up in the 70's like me. 70's were cooler than now but also cooler than the late 30's and the early 60's. Nothing unusual. Just up and down. I's been up for a while and it will go down during the next decade or 2 and the co2 crap will end.

max temps.GIF
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom