The world has barely 10 years to get climate change under control U.N. scientists say

[Phil C. McNasty]

After checking the bloomberg page, what do you really think is changing the climate of the planet?

So lets dissect Bloomberg's main points which they claim can cause global warming

Earth's orbit
The Sun (solar activity)
Ozone
And finally CO2

Now lets see what NASA has to say about all this: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1

Newspaper headlines trumpet record-breaking temperatures, dwindling sea ice, and retreating glaciers around the world. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases responsible for scalding temperatures on Venus and at least 33 degrees C of normal warming here on Earth, are on the rise. Our planet seems destined for a hot future!

But is it really? Or are we simply experiencing a natural variation in Earth's climate cycles that will return to "normal" in time?

Correlations between rising CO2 levels and global surface temperatures suggest that our planet is on a one-way warming trend triggered by human activity. Indeed, studies by paleoclimatologists reveal that natural variability caused by changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions can largely explain deviations in global temperature from 1000 AD until 1850 AD, near the beginning of the Industrial Era. After that, the best models require a human-induced greenhouse effect.

In spite of what may seem persuasive evidence, many scientists are nonetheless skeptical.

They argue that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. The Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence, they note. And not all of the evidence supports global warming. Air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably, according to satellite data, and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the last 20 years.

It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change.

Why is the question so thorny? The reason, say experts, is that Earth's climate is complex and chaotic. It's so unwieldy that researchers simply can't conduct experiments to check their ideas in the usual way of science. They often rely, instead, on computer models. But such models are only as good as their inputs and programming, and today's computer models are known to be imperfect

So there you have it, the Sun is believed to have caused warming on earth in the past before. Therefore when solar activity increases so does the temperature on earth. This could PARTLY explain the tiny bit of warming we've had over the last 100 years, since PART of that time the Sun did become slightly hotter.

Also, if you continue reading the article they admit global warming isnt exactly easy to measure because we have to rely on computer models which are only as good as their inputs and programming, and no programmer in the world is always 100% perfect

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also if you continue to read the article it talks about climate cycles. (note Frankie, its talking about cycles again)

Other climate cycles fall in between, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation mentioned above, which is thought to complete one cycle roughly every 20 to 30 years.

"And so you have all these processes mixed together that have been going on for thousands of years, and you're in the difficult position of trying to separate something very recent from the natural cycle without fully understanding what that natural cycle is," Abdalati said.

Left: Knowing where a relatively short interval of observation fits into the long-term pattern is a difficult challenge for scientists. A steady increase that appears to be a trend may be a trend, but it may also be a small part of a larger cycle.

Observing a system like climate that varies on several time scales -- some of which approach geological slowness -- could be likened to an ant watching the hands of a clock, "perhaps with the ant sitting on the hour hand," Abdalati added.

Seen in this context, scientists don't give much weight to the five-year snapshot of the ice on Greenland.

"You know, five years is a pretty short amount of time in glaciological terms," Krabill said. "To try to make inferences about 'Global Climate Change' in capital letters from a five-year period of time is a pretty risky business."

Other modern data sets are not much longer. The era of satellite observation is only about 30 to 40 years old -- a mere blink in climatological terms. And the widespread network of weather-measurement stations in the developed world is about 150 years old.

Here some guy named Abdalati clearly admits that its very difficult to seperate what is global warming from CO2, and what is warming from natural cycles.

So there you have it, from NASA's own site. They are at least honest and admit they dont fully understand all the natural warming/cooling cycles earth goes through. So how can anyone with 100% certainty say that all of the 0.8C warming earth had over the past 100 years or so is all from manmade cO2. They can't, its impossible to gauge

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

LOL. You are talking about natural warming cycles tio attempt to explain what nasa and 97% of climate scientists have said is extremely likely to be caused by human activity. NOT NATURAL WARMING CYCLES. I guess you are relying on alternative facts

Judging by your responses, you are completely unable to follow this thread

 

[Fathammer]

CO2 is what we exhale.

The more we keep following along with the Global Warming hoax, the more we will EVENTUALLY have to pay to breathe.

If you think its far fetched, pretty soon we will NOT have access to FREE water....https://www.disclose.tv/water-is-no...s-ceo-of-nestle-peter-brabeck-letmathe-312122

 

[toguy5252]

Judging by your responses, you are completely unable to follow this thread

LOL. Apparently so.

 

[Frankfooter]

So lets dissect Bloomberg's main points which they claim can cause global warming

Earth's orbit
The Sun (solar activity)
Ozone
And finally CO2

Now lets see what NASA has to say about all this: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast20oct_1



So there you have it, the Sun is believed to have caused warming on earth in the past before. Therefore when solar activity increases so does the temperature on earth. This could PARTLY explain the tiny bit of warming we've had over the last 100 years, since PART of that time the Sun did become slightly hotter.

Also, if you continue reading the article they admit global warming isnt exactly easy to measure because we have to rely on computer models which are only as good as their inputs and programming, and no programmer in the world is always 100% perfect

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also if you continue to read the article it talks about climate cycles. (note Frankie, its talking about cycles again)


Here some guy named Abdalati clearly admits that its very difficult to seperate what is global warming from CO2, and what is warming from natural cycles.

So there you have it, from NASA's own site. They are at least honest and admit they dont fully understand all the natural warming/cooling cycles earth goes through. So how can anyone with 100% certainty say that all of the 0.8C warming earth had over the past 100 years or so is all from manmade cO2. They can't, its impossible to gauge

Responding as a favour to Phil, who wants this dead thread reanimated.

You must have dug pretty deep into your denier pages to find a 20 year old posting on NASA. Nicely done.
Its from the year 2000, it says.

And I note that you post the part where NASA asks the questions but missed quoting where they answered it:

"It all comes out as indicating that you can't resort to (natural variability) to explain the recent warming," Crowley said. "The (recent) warming is consistent with a greenhouse effect but inconsistent with any explanation from natural variability."

Whoops, your page once again shows you were wrong. Even with a 20 year old post.

 

[jcpro]

In the end, they will discover that the CO2 is not the cause, but the effect of increasing temperature. Of course, it will take decades to get there and untold amount of treasure before the "consensus" experts admit it.

 

[Frankfooter]

In the end, they will discover that the CO2 is not the cause, but the effect of increasing temperature. Of course, it will take decades to get there and untold amount of treasure before the "consensus" experts admit it.

Cool story, bro.

But totally stupid, if you ask me.
In your theory, what do you think is warming the planet and 'creating' all this CO2?
(give me a few minutes to put on some popcorn)

 

[jcpro]

Cool story, bro.

But totally stupid, if you ask me.
In your theory, what do you think is warming the planet and 'creating' all this CO2?
(give me a few minutes to put on some popcorn)

The sea levels have been rising for the last 20 000 years without help from human co2 emissions. The climate has been warming in the same period, again, without any help from the human co2 emissions. The atmospheric concentration of the co2 has been much higher than today(as high as 750 pp/m) and much lower- again. without any human intervention. Conclusion? The climate variations of the planet Earth is a natural occuring process driven by variety of factors. As soon as the "consensus" scientists can explain the past, I'll listen to their theories regarding the future.

 

[Frankfooter]

The sea levels have been rising for the last 20 000 years without help from human co2 emissions. The climate has been warming in the same period, again, without any help from the human co2 emissions. The atmospheric concentration of the co2 has been much higher than today(as high as 750 pp/m) and much lower- again. without any human intervention. Conclusion? The climate variations of the planet Earth is a natural occuring process driven by variety of factors. As soon as the "consensus" scientists can explain the past, I'll listen to their theories regarding the future.

Again:
In your theory, what do you think is warming the planet and 'creating' all this CO2?

Is it just 'magical planet changes'?
What's the mechanism?

 

[jcpro]

Again:
In your theory, what do you think is warming the planet and 'creating' all this CO2?

Is it just 'magical planet changes'?
What's the mechanism?

Again, what has done it in the past? I don't have a theory, I'm sure-based on the 4 billion years of climate history-that human co2 emissions are NOT the driver of change. If dramatic changes occurred without our participation (and they did, of that there is no doubt), the logic dictates that other factors are at play.

 

[Frankfooter]

I don't have a theory

Which means your views are as accurate as Trump saying 'no collusion'.

The IPCC has a theory and evidence.
You've been trumped.

 

[jcpro]

Which means your views are as accurate as Trump saying 'no collusion'.

The IPCC has a theory and evidence.
You've been trumped.

And you failed to address any of my points because you have no opinions of your own. You let the half-witted media do your thinking and provide you with conclusions. You're a sink for fads and idiotic political hyperbole that lacks judgement and healthy scepticism. But, don't despair, in ten years they'll give you another ten years and then another... And the life will go on, just as before.

 

[Phil C. McNasty]

Cool story, bro.

But totally stupid, if you ask me.
In your theory, what do you think is warming the planet and 'creating' all this CO2?
(give me a few minutes to put on some popcorn)

Frankie, all you do is rehash opinions of experts who (you think) are correct.

You are completely clueless on your own.
And you will continue to be clueless on your own

 

[Ref]

10 years form now scientists will claim this all over again.

 

[onthebottom]

This is the hyperbole the media is drawn to because the topic is too complex for reporters or their audience.

 

[Frankfooter]

And you failed to address any of my points

You don't have any points.
You just claimed that the warming planet has created the rise in CO2, which is a total flat earth type 'theory'.

 

[Frankfooter]

Frankie, all you do is rehash opinions of experts who (you think) are correct.

You are completely clueless on your own.
And you will continue to be clueless on your own

Not at all, Phil.
I've personally shown the error in each of your posts and each time you just ignore when you've lost and instead just come out with yet another copy and paste denier article which you don't understand.

Every single time.

 

[PornAddict]

Frankie, all you do is rehash opinions of experts who (you think) are correct.

You are completely clueless on your own.
And you will continue to be clueless on your own

Not at all, Phil.
I've personally shown the error in each of your posts and each time you just ignore when you've lost and instead just come out with yet another copy and paste denier article which you don't understand.

Every single time.

FrankY your a first class bullshitters!
You lost your argument to Moviefan and John Laurie and now to Phil McNasty

They all won and you lost!!!

 

[shack]

If you think its far fetched, pretty soon we will NOT have access to FREE water....https://www.disclose.tv/water-is-no...s-ceo-of-nestle-peter-brabeck-letmathe-312122

And further down the road, in an admittedly extreme situation, would be an impetus for the U.S. to just TAKE what is Canada's greatest resource.

 

[K Douglas]

Which means your views are as accurate as Trump saying 'no collusion'.

The IPCC has a theory and evidence.
You've been trumped.

The IPCC is a corrupt unaccountable kleptocracy. They are the perpetrators of this nonsense which has cost the Western economy trillions in lost wealth, much of which went to China.