Climate change legit after all! Who woulda thunk it?

[Woobie]

This is an excellent question. I have no doubt that some of these stories of islands disappearing are over exaggerated by many people pushing for climate reform. Or simply the islands are being eroded away. However, there was a story I read in school that I found quite interesting. I'll link it if I can find it. It basically spoke of a very small patch of land that a group of islanders would frequent in order to fish. Well, this patch of land is now completely covered in water. Not eroded away, just completely engulfed. It even has satellite photos from a few years ago, taken at the same date in time showing the changes.

EDIT: I am unable to find the article. So I guess this point is moot since I can't back it up. This is a good read however, even though it's CNN
You're making this island disappear

There used to be an entire civilization that existed on the western coast of India, back when there weren't nearly as many humans. But the island chain is under water now, and the civilization gone. Surely no one argues that was man-made. The climate changes. In fact, it has never been static.

Do you ever step back and ask yourself why this has become an emergency in the last 40 years? And do you ever ask yourself how, in spite of the flawless math and hyper accurate instrumentation they keep screwing up the predictions?

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

There used to be an entire civilization that existed on the western coast of India, back when there weren't nearly as many humans. But the island chain is under water now, and the civilization gone. Surely no one argues that was man-made. The climate changes. In fact, it has never been static.

Do you ever step back and ask yourself why this has become an emergency in the last 40 years? And do you ever ask yourself how, in spite of the flawless math and hyper accurate instrumentation they keep screwing up the predictions?

Actually, quite frequently. Again, I tend to lean more conservative on these issues, but I think it's a mix of a couple of things. I'm about to head of for work, but I'd love come back and answer this question at a later time. I think it's very well thought out, and I'd love to answer it with my personal belief

 

[Woobie]

Be safe, and have a good evening at work.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Do you ever step back and ask yourself why this has become an emergency in the last 40 years? And do you ever ask yourself how, in spite of the flawless math and hyper accurate instrumentation they keep screwing up the predictions?

Eh, I'll do it know. We only have 100 years of true climate data. Everything before that was derived from first person accounts, and studying rock and soil sediments. It's really only been within the past 40 years that we've really only started to understand how the atmosphere works. Take a look at Ted Fujita. It took a MASSIVE tornado outbreak for him to step back and go, "Huh, I wonder what causes this." Before that, you were ridiculed (seriously) if you asked any questions about tornado formation.

The same can be said for the climate. It's only been within the past 40 years that we've really started to study this phenomenon. We've also had much better tools at our disposal to do so. Satellites, weather monitoring equipment, and global forecast models have all become the norm. Now, if you have data from 1990, and compare with with what we call data from 1890, of course a scientist is going to say something isn't right. We ponder, we wonder, and we want to try and figure out what is changing to create such a scenario. One of the things i think it boils down to is what I believe people think is the worst case scenario. "IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW WE ALL DIE." I think people really like doom and gloom, and if you can keep pushing that, then hey, all the funding in the world. That's where the agenda comes in.

On the other hand, I think people just don't want to admit they were wrong. Not about global warming in particular, but the time frame that has been set. As our instruments have become more accurate, we're able to see that something is going on, just not at the rate that was originally mentioned. Another thing to keep in mind is that these models out future is based off of are inaccurate. I use weather models, I know this first hand. That why real time observations are so important. If someone says a climate model has a 10+ increase in temperature, I tend to ignore it. If five years from now though, global recorded temperatures have risen by ten degrees. Well, that's an observed fact.

At the end of the day, a person can look at a model, and skew the data any which way they please. What it all boils down to is real-time observations. Something in which we haven't really gotten a handle on until the past 15 or so years. That's why the next few years will be so important. Our instruments are the best they've ever been, and we have a real chance at telling just how serious this issue is, or can be, and what can be done to help.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

[FONT=&amp]These factors have caused Earth’s climate to change many times.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Scientists have pieced together a record of Earth’s climate, dating back hundreds of thousands of years (and, in some cases, millions or hundreds of millions of years), by analyzing a number of indirect measures of climate such as ice cores, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, and ocean sediments, and by studying changes in Earth’s orbit around the sun.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]This record shows that the climate system varies naturally over a wide range of time scales. In general, climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s can be explained by natural causes, such as changes in solar energy, volcanic eruptions, and natural changes in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Recent climate changes, however, cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Research indicates that natural causes do not explain most observed warming, especially warming since the mid-20th century. Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.[2]. Per the EPA website......This CANNOT be disputed...??????..They have records going back hundreds of thousands of years....???????.And the expllaination prior to 1700s warm period ...Also Extremely Likely.??????[/FONT]

 

[Dean C.]

So is it Anthropogenic?

Correct , if I had my laptop right now (went back to apple to fix the graphics card) I would throw up the lecture slides from my Biology, Physics and Chemistry class that were all pretty much dedicated to Global Warming and the different factors that go into it (almost all of it is Human generated though Methane is a small part of that so you can blame cattle partially apparently lol.

 

[Woobie]

Correct , if I had my laptop right now (went back to apple to fix the graphics card) I would throw up the lecture slides from my Biology, Physics and Chemistry class that were all pretty much dedicated to Global Warming and the different factors that go into it (almost all of it is Human generated though Methane is a small part of that so you can blame cattle partially apparently lol.

So the small amount of global warming we are experiencing now is generated by human activity. But the comparatively huge peaks and valleys in both our global temperature and CO2 concentration (which are not always corollary) in the past were....

Or to put it another way, I need to quit driving my diesel truck and slaughter all my methane-producing sheep because the temperature will increase by 1/10th of a degree. But when it was 3 degrees warmer or colder in the past due to natural cycles it was no big deal.

Sorry, but if you're paying that kind of money for an education and didn't pick up some critical thinking along the way, you got scammed.

 

[Woobie]

Eh, I'll do it know. We only have 100 years of true climate data. Everything before that was derived from first person accounts, and studying rock and soil sediments. It's really only been within the past 40 years that we've really only started to understand how the atmosphere works. Take a look at Ted Fujita. It took a MASSIVE tornado outbreak for him to step back and go, "Huh, I wonder what causes this." Before that, you were ridiculed (seriously) if you asked any questions about tornado formation.

The same can be said for the climate. It's only been within the past 40 years that we've really started to study this phenomenon. We've also had much better tools at our disposal to do so. Satellites, weather monitoring equipment, and global forecast models have all become the norm. Now, if you have data from 1990, and compare with with what we call data from 1890, of course a scientist is going to say something isn't right. We ponder, we wonder, and we want to try and figure out what is changing to create such a scenario. One of the things i think it boils down to is what I believe people think is the worst case scenario. "IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW WE ALL DIE." I think people really like doom and gloom, and if you can keep pushing that, then hey, all the funding in the world. That's where the agenda comes in.

On the other hand, I think people just don't want to admit they were wrong. Not about global warming in particular, but the time frame that has been set. As our instruments have become more accurate, we're able to see that something is going on, just not at the rate that was originally mentioned. Another thing to keep in mind is that these models out future is based off of are inaccurate. I use weather models, I know this first hand. That why real time observations are so important. If someone says a climate model has a 10+ increase in temperature, I tend to ignore it. If five years from now though, global recorded temperatures have risen by ten degrees. Well, that's an observed fact.

At the end of the day, a person can look at a model, and skew the data any which way they please. What it all boils down to is real-time observations. Something in which we haven't really gotten a handle on until the past 15 or so years. That's why the next few years will be so important. Our instruments are the best they've ever been, and we have a real chance at telling just how serious this issue is, or can be, and what can be done to help.

I can appreciate a lot of this.

My skepticism is born out of a chicken little mindset. The sky was falling in the 80's. Why? Because heavier-than-air CFC's and other gasses were putting holes in the ozone layer. And then we took a deep breath and noticed that the holes grow and shrink. Then there were other bogey-men. Now it is the very substance upon which the vast majority of earth's biomass depends upon for life, CO2. So now bigger trees and more plentiful crops are symptoms of a dying planet. In addition to this, the predicted disaster keeps changing every few years.

But there is one constant in all this: the solution is more government control and more of my money. After so much of this, one starts to get suspicious.

As you say, I would like to see some observations.

 

[Dean C.]

So the small amount of global warming we are experiencing now is generated by human activity. But the comparatively huge peaks and valleys in both our global temperature and CO2 concentration (which are not always corollary) in the past were....

Or to put it another way, I need to quit driving my diesel truck and slaughter all my methane-producing sheep because the temperature will increase by 1/10th of a degree. But when it was 3 degrees warmer or colder in the past due to natural cycles it was no big deal.

Sorry, but if you're paying that kind of money for an education and didn't pick up some critical thinking along the way, you got scammed.

Yep Indiana University's Biochemistry department is a total joke you caught me. It's not the tempature here you worry about its the tempature of the Polar Ice Caps you worry about, but you obviously have better critical thinking skills than I do so I will let you ponder those particular implications.

Also apparently NASA cannot think for themselves either, here is their official CO2 levels, feel free to argue about the validity of Ice Core readings as well.


Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

 

[Woobie]

Yep Indiana University's Biochemistry department is a total joke you caught me. It's not the tempature here you worry about its the tempature of the Polar Ice Caps you worry about, but you obviously have better critical thinking skills than I do so I will let you ponder those particular implications.

Also apparently NASA cannot think for themselves either, here is their official CO2 levels, feel free to argue about the validity of Ice Core readings as well.


Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Its the ice cores that I find so interesting. We can tell from them that levels have been high and low. Temperatures have been high and low. But now the global cooling, erm global warming, umm climate change, no polar ice cap changes are my fault this time around.

IU, NASA, and a host of other organizations think as they are paid to think. If you care to look, the evidence for this is abundant. The scientists observe, their bosses editorialize to appease those who control their budgets. Follow the money. Or don't.

 

[HubertGummer]

Yep Indiana University's Biochemistry department is a total joke you caught me. It's not the tempature here you worry about its the tempature of the Polar Ice Caps you worry about, but you obviously have better critical thinking skills than I do so I will let you ponder those particular implications.

Also apparently NASA cannot think for themselves either, here is their official CO2 levels, feel free to argue about the validity of Ice Core readings as well.


Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Carbon Dioxide

Curious how you explain the Ice Age. The earth cooled into and warmed out of it without man driving his SUV's or burning coal to produce electricity.

And BTW, IU is the most liberal college in the most liberal city in Indiana...of course they will push man made global warming.

 

[oldpink]

There have been people in NOAA and at the university level that have devoted their entire lives to the study of global warming/climate change, that do so without raising flags, screaming from the mountain tops, or otherwise "look at me." So sure, continue to disregard their findings because "Oh well, they work for NOAA. Of course they believe in that crap."

I must be a real hayseed because my skeptic red flag shoots to the top of the mast when these climate alarmists repeatedly get caught fudging or outright fabricating their evidence.

 

[Dean C.]

According to the NASA read outs the historical high for CO2 levels was about 300ppm, currently they are slightly above 400ppm and this is a very recent development, what else could have possibly caused such a jump in the numbers over the previous historical high?

Also on the thread of institutions being essentially paid off to promote Global Warming as basically undeniably true. What exactly would government or NGO's gain from falsifying Dada and research such as this? Would it not be better for everyone involved to remove all government imposed restrictions on manufacturing and just dump pollutants into the air at a rate not seen since the start of the industrial revolution?

Maybe you don't know about the London smog of 1952 caused by massive amounts of Industrial pollution. Hell even of Global Warming is not a thing (it totally is) is cleaner air for the entire world not a good thing as well as renewable energy research and advancements?

Maybe you are the one drinking the proverbial kool-aid

 

[HubertGummer]

According to the NASA read outs the historical high for CO2 levels was about 300ppm, currently they are slightly above 400ppm and this is a very recent development, what else could have possibly caused such a jump in the numbers over the previous historical high?

Also on the thread of institutions being essentially paid off to promote Global Warming as basically undeniably true. What exactly would government or NGO's gain from falsifying Dada and research such as this? Would it not be better for everyone involved to remove all government imposed restrictions on manufacturing and just dump pollutants into the air at a rate not seen since the start of the industrial revolution?

Maybe you don't know about the London smog of 1952 caused by massive amounts of Industrial pollution. Hell even of Global Warming is not a thing (it totally is) is cleaner air for the entire world not a good thing as well as renewable energy research and advancements?

Maybe you are the one drinking the proverbial kool-aid

Simple Answer...Control.

 

[actaeon277]

And we only had a drill with the assumption that the Petty Officer of the Watch had gone bonkers.
He's lucky that the riflemen (probably with an M-14, depending on whether that happened in the 80's or early 90's) didn't get pressed into firing!
I'm sure he recovered fully and went back to work on that same sub afterward.

It was late 80s, or the VERY beginning of the 90s.
Riflemen were in black if I remember.
Don't know if they were ship's force (Tender), or Marines.

But I do know it wasn't a drill. If it was, it was a good way to get someone shot with all the loaded weapons pointing at the Topside Watch.

 

[Dean C.]

Simple Answer...Control.

Did you read the rest of it? Again what does the Government or any NGO get out of this? What exactly are they controlling that is of such benefit by posing the environmental restrictions on manufacturing? I mean if you think a smog covered ****hole would be a fun place to live I suggest looking into Beijing I hear it's lovely there.

 

[jamil]

Simple Answer...Control.

No. Money. The Green Industrial Complex.

 

[Woobie]

According to the NASA read outs the historical high for CO2 levels was about 300ppm, currently they are slightly above 400ppm and this is a very recent development, what else could have possibly caused such a jump in the numbers over the previous historical high?

Also on the thread of institutions being essentially paid off to promote Global Warming as basically undeniably true. What exactly would government or NGO's gain from falsifying Dada and research such as this? Would it not be better for everyone involved to remove all government imposed restrictions on manufacturing and just dump pollutants into the air at a rate not seen since the start of the industrial revolution?

Maybe you don't know about the London smog of 1952 caused by massive amounts of Industrial pollution. Hell even of Global Warming is not a thing (it totally is) is cleaner air for the entire world not a good thing as well as renewable energy research and advancements?

Maybe you are the one drinking the proverbial kool-aid

Before I go on, I support clean air. I hate large cities because of the air if nothing else. And yes, I know about London. That was a bad thing, and it's good that they fixed it. But no one in human history has seen a need to fix cow farts, other than the people who have to work around them.

Are you really asking me what they would have to gain? Like I said, you need a refund, because you weren't taught to think. The government gets control, which is what they want. So they win big, and a lot of this research is funded by them. But, as you point out, NGO's also pay for research. I have two words I want you to burn into your brain: patent expiration. For instance, freon became a commodity, and was less profitable to produce. So producers patented newer types of refrigerants, and suddenly the old ones were nuking the ozone. That cycle has gone on for some time now. Same with other technologies, like the light bulb. No one stands to profit more from regulation than those who get to determine what the regulations say.

Finally, as if to put the icing on my cake of critical thinking, you quoted NASA, who specifically only went back 800,000 years. But if you look back towards 500 million years, we are at one of the lowest points in history. It has been over 1,500ppm a number of times. I wonder why they would leave out the research of Prof. Rothman from MIT? And while CO2 concentration and global temperatures are corollary, some research has suggested CO2 levels actually lag global temps. That's right, the temp could be the cause, and the gas the effect, not the other way around.

 

[JTScribe]

According to the NASA read outs the historical high for CO2 levels was about 300ppm, currently they are slightly above 400ppm and this is a very recent development, what else could have possibly caused such a jump in the numbers over the previous historical high?

Also on the thread of institutions being essentially paid off to promote Global Warming as basically undeniably true. What exactly would government or NGO's gain from falsifying Dada and research such as this? Would it not be better for everyone involved to remove all government imposed restrictions on manufacturing and just dump pollutants into the air at a rate not seen since the start of the industrial revolution?

Maybe you don't know about the London smog of 1952 caused by massive amounts of Industrial pollution. Hell even of Global Warming is not a thing (it totally is) is cleaner air for the entire world not a good thing as well as renewable energy research and advancements?

Maybe you are the one drinking the proverbial kool-aid

Oh, BS.

It was 300ppm in the paleozoic era, when the world was far warmer than it is now, eh?

View attachment 52056

 

[Fargo]

Oh, BS.

It was 300ppm in the paleozoic era, when the world was far warmer than it is now, eh?

View attachment 52056

+1. I think it is fascinating "historical" CO2 highs and lows are being advanced as some sort of fact of equivalent accuracy to current measurements when they are a historical extrapolation from times when we weren't measuring such things. It is really cute that we are calling this "science" when there are a ton of variables present with no control or observation.

That IU feels is necessarynto teach climate change is a part of physics should be a huge red flag, not some sort of supporting fact.