1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Global Warming Or Climate Change?

Discussion in 'Speakers Corner' started by Lightning_650, Sep 28, 2016.

  1. From 2015.

    Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

    The timing of the 1979 NASA satellite instrument launch could not have been better for global warming alarmists. The late 1970s marked the end of a 30-year cooling trend. As a result, the polar ice caps were quite likely more extensive than they had been since at least the 1920s. Nevertheless, this abnormally extensive 1979 polar ice extent would appear to be the “normal” baseline when comparing post-1979 polar ice extent.

    Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)
    • Like Like x 1
  2. What would be truly amazing is if the climate stayed the same for decades. Ten thousand years ago something caused the end of the previous ice age, and we can be pretty certain it wasn't manmade. The climate is a complex system with all kinds of inputs and feedback mechanisms that I am certain are only partially understood and poorly modelled. The predictions made by the warmists over the years since the mid 80's, prior to that the consensus was we were heading for another ice age, have always been show to be exaggerated.

    Destruction of habitat, biodiversity and the widespread use of pesticides is a much more serious problem than manmade climate change IMHO.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. The earth self regulates, each time a factor cause the climate to change it eliminates or reduces that factor in order to return to a norm. Shame is we shall take a few species with us but hey nothing is for ever.
  4. In the 11th century Irish monks settled in Iceland because it was so green and fertile.
    And once upon a time one could walk from Anglia to the Netherlands without getting your feet wet.
    Long before industrialisation.
    Of course,these periods are not mentioned by those who wish to blame and tax the common man for any change in temperature or climate.
    There are so many circles that can't be squared by those who have been taken in by this new religion,but naturally these are glossed over or ignored by the fools.
    A bloody rip-off opportunity,nothing else.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Absolutely,and one day it will be our species that disappears.
    Nature will take it's course,and the idiocy of mankind will no doubt be the reason for it's own demise.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. That the climate is changing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, manmade CO2 is increasing and we live on a planet with finite resources is all undeniable. Focusing almost entirely on CO2 emissions is missing the point IMHO, maybe the politicians do it because they can and it makes them feel good to be doing something, but it is just one of many problems we face.

    Maybe this is why SETI hasn't found any evidence for advanced civilisations yet ?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  7. It does in many ways but it is also chaotic where small inputs can produce large outputs. It must have some basic stability otherwise we wouldn't be here now but ten thousand years ago our world was a very different place to what it is now.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Its an excuse to control and tax the masses.

    I don't have an issue with making cleaner air to breathe because that is to the benefit of all ( anyone my age will remember how fog was a constant problem from mid October to December just 30 or so years ago but now we rarely have fog problems) but to make people pay extra for polluting the atmosphere is a con. If the pollution is a problem then stop the problem, don't tax it.

    The London congestion charge is a moot point here.
  9. The only constant on the planet is change, the climate is always changing, the problem is that man has accelerated the change so that the planet and plants/animals cannot keep pace with the current rate of change, so extinction is going to come before adaptation in the near future, this is the problem.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. "The level of carbon dioxide, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from our mouths, has come very close to reaching the “symbolic” 400 parts per million (ppm) threshold in the atmosphere. Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level “A sad milestone. A call to action.” New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to “a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom” and warned that rising CO2 means “the fate of the earth hangs in the balance.” The New Yorker Magazine declared “Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t.” And a UK Guardian editorial declared “Swift political action can avert a carbon dioxide crisis.”

    But despite the man-made global warming fear movement’s clarion call of alarm, many scientists are dismissing the 400ppm level of carbon dioxide as a non-event. Scientists point out that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2. Renowned climatologists have declared that a doubling or even tripling of CO2 would not have major impacts on the Earth’s climate or temperature.

    Scientists also note that geologically speaking, the Earth is currently in a “CO2 famine” and that the geologic record reveals that ice ages have occurred when CO2 was at 2000 ppm to as high as 8000ppm. In addition, peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to the present day on Earth when carbon dioxide was up to twenty times higher than today’s levels. And, a peer-reviewed study this year found that the present day carbon dioxide level of 400 ppm was exceeded — without any human influence — 12,750 years ago when CO2 may have reached up to 425 ppm.

    Princeton U. Physicist Dr. William Happer and NASA Moonwalker & Geologist Dr. Harrison H. Schmitt wrote on May 8, 2013 in the Wall Street Journal: “Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case.”

    “The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather,” Happer and Schmidt wrote.

    Princeton’s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 ‘famine.’ Happer explained to Congress: ”Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind…’CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning,” Happer added.

    “Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. “Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained.

    The claim by global warming activists and scientists that CO2 is the global temperature “control knob” has been challenged in the peer-reviewed literature and the Earth’s geologic history."

    CO2 Nears 400 ppm – Relax! It’s Not Global Warming ‘End Times’ — But Only A ‘Big Yawn’ — Climate Depot Special Report | Climate Depot
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. The real damage man is doing to the planet whether its accelerated climate change, depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitats, extinction of species or the polluting of land and ocean is caused by over-population. All the dirty and destructive habits we have adopted, our profligate use of resources, all the technologies we develop, in fact the purpose behind everything we do is the endless and mindless expansion or our species; and all the technological, political and economic "solutions" which we devise (so we tell ourselves) to alleviate the pressures we place on our world by our existence always has the reverse effect and ends up accelerating population expansion instead of mitigating the effects of it.
    It is completely pointless to discuss environmentalism, ecology, sustainability et al without discussing population. But we won't. We are too vain, too self-important and too frightened of the conclusions to contemplate our individual responsibilities and there are too many vested interests higher up the human food chain to allow a wider discussion to take place. The subject is forbidden and we kid ourselves we will expand, develop and consume our way out of problems we have created by expanding developing and consuming and we will somehow all have jam tomorrow.
    We are a deeply unlovely species.
    #12 Gimlet, Sep 30, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 5
  12. "We" don't have a problem discussing it on here:
    "They",that is Governments and administrations that bow their heads to the religion of political correctness,are the ones that won't discuss it.
    Another great example of how easily those who claim superior wisdom to the man in the street are swayed by minorities and pressure groups.
  13. I don't know. I've had some extraordinary bile hurled my way on-line for suggesting we need to reduce the population. The assumption seems to be that I am advocating mass-sterilisation or some sort of cull involving extermination camps. I try in vain to point out that the answer is perfectly simple. We are all born and we will all die. All we have to do it reduce the birth rate and nature will do the rest.
    • Agree Agree x 4
  14. #15 johnv, Sep 30, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2016
  15. A positive step forward is that Theresa May has wound up the Department for Energy and Climate Change. Hopefully this is a result of recognising the folly of sacrificing our economy on the altar of "climate change".
  16. It's in our genes Gimlet.
  17. couldnt we create an economy around climate change?
  18. It is but its a poor excuse. We are not slave to our genes and we are rational. We understand cause and effect and we aren't driven by instinct alone. Unlike, as far as we know, any other species, we understand the consequences of our actions and we can accurately predict outcomes. We can plan.
    Its in our genes to die of old age at 35 but we've learned to alter that outcome.
  19. We could but would it be a forward or backward step ? Hydrocarbons, and coal before it, has provided the world with plentiful and cheap energy that has driven our economies forwards. All of the indications are that renewables are actually more expensive than carbon based energy sources, although that calculation can change if you factor in the "environmental cost", but how do you place a value on the "environmental cost".

    Much has been said recently about investment in carbon capture, we could produce loads of jobs and lead the world, blah blah blah. But the only benefit that carbon capture would provide is an additional cost for industry to bear, unless you believe that CO2 is pushing us to the brink of environmental collapse, and I don't.

    Similarly we could boost employment by banning the combined harvester and the tractor. We could bring back tattie picking, the possibilities are endless, but is it progress ?

    Maybe the drive for progress, aka growth and profit, for the few, something that an "investment" in carbon capture would certainly provide, is the problem and we need to rethink how we all live our lives, but we will still need food, water shelter and warmth to survive.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information