Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[OldSolduer]

Is he? His wikipedia entry doesn't use the "c" word. Surely a convict can't run for public office in Canada.

He's a sanctimonious hypocritical jerk. I would not be surprised if he had an offshore account with much $$$ for his retirement next year.

 

[Furniture]

…hidden towards the bottom of the article…



And we see blame on climate change here in Canada yet let people continually rebuild in flood damaged areas and feign surprise the next time the flooded areas are…flooded. (Gatineau, Fraser Valley, etc.)

Back home on PEI people have long commented on new developments in areas known to flood occasionally. Everybody from the Island knows that the downtown waterfront of Charlottetown can occasionally flood due to king tides and storm surges, hence the historical lack of housing in those areas. Fast forward a few decades, and suddenly the flooding in new developments in the known flood areas is "climate change".

 

[dimsum]

A few days ago, CSIRO (the Australian equivalent of Environment Canada) published this report on the numbers for 2024.

Australia's changing climate

Australia's weather and climate including temperature, fire weather, rainfall, heavy rainfall, streamflow, tropical cyclones, snowfall: State of the Climate 2024

www.csiro.au

 

[ArmyRick]

Here is an excellent of how we humans view "Climate change", its long but very worth the watch

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes, there's a greenhouse effect
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Yes, human emissions are raising CO2 concentrations
Yes, that's warming Earth's climate system
No, alternative explanations

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes, there's a greenhouse effect
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Yes, human emissions are raising CO2 concentrations
Yes, that's warming Earth's climate system
No, alternative explanations

one can go further

carbon dioxide absorbs and reradiates infrared radiation. this is a testable hypothesis and could be falsified. it was proven true in the mid-19th century by John Tyndall.

CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. the trend in atm. CO2 is measurable and the trend was measured in 1960s by Keeling.

the observed increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions. you could falsify this if you showed another source that could explain it.

the climate system is warming. you can measure the temperature and estimate the trend; this has been shown over and over and over and the warming of the climate system is, as the IPCC says, unequivocal.

the paleoclimate record supports the idea that GHGs have a big lever on the climate. this is again a testable hypothesis and it has been verified many times.

as the climate warms, the atmosphere gets more humid and ice melts, both of which amplify the original warming. this is testable and has been verified:

 

[ArmyRick]

Yes, there's a greenhouse effect
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Yes, human emissions are raising CO2 concentrations
Yes, that's warming Earth's climate system
No, alternative explanations

Yes everyone who drinks water will eventually die
Yes everyone who breathes air will eventually die
Yes everyone who wears clothes will eventually die
Yet Water, breathing and clothes are not cause of death or only in some rare cases

Your thinking is very reductionist. And overly simplified.

Explain to me how massive shifts in the climate occurred long before humans had technology? How did Carbon levels at various points go sky rocketting high and at other times low without human technology? Why is that many scientist say atmospheric water and not carbon has much greater influence on weather?

 

[ArmyRick]

one can go further

carbon dioxide absorbs and reradiates infrared radiation. this is a testable hypothesis and could be falsified. it was proven true in the mid-19th century by John Tyndall.

CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. the trend in atm. CO2 is measurable and the trend was measured in 1960s by Keeling.

the observed increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions. you could falsify this if you showed another source that could explain it.

the climate system is warming. you can measure the temperature and estimate the trend; this has been shown over and over and over and the warming of the climate system is, as the IPCC says, unequivocal.

the paleoclimate record supports the idea that GHGs have a big lever on the climate. this is again a testable hypothesis and it has been verified many times.

as the climate warms, the atmosphere gets more humid and ice melts, both of which amplify the original warming. this is testable and has been verified:

Did you watch the video I posted? yes or no?

Keep in mind, carbon is the element of life. Its doesn't just come from technology. It comes from every single thing that has a set of lungs. As for the IPCC, warning, one of the scientist in that video worked for the IPCC and was warned in the begining of the panel to basically skew the data.

 

[Brad Sallows]

one can go further

carbon dioxide absorbs and reradiates infrared radiation. this is a testable hypothesis and could be falsified. it was proven true in the mid-19th century by John Tyndall.

CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. the trend in atm. CO2 is measurable and the trend was measured in 1960s by Keeling.

the observed increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions. you could falsify this if you showed another source that could explain it.

the climate system is warming. you can measure the temperature and estimate the trend; this has been shown over and over and over and the warming of the climate system is, as the IPCC says, unequivocal.

the paleoclimate record supports the idea that GHGs have a big lever on the climate. this is again a testable hypothesis and it has been verified many times.

as the climate warms, the atmosphere gets more humid and ice melts, both of which amplify the original warming. this is testable and has been verified:

Some of observed CO2 increase is due to combustion. The climate system also warms due to waste heat. The paleoclimate record supports the idea that the planet has experienced climates more extreme in both directions. It's improbable that any "amplification" can lead to a "runaway" situation, or the planet would have become irreversibly very cold or very hot long ago.

None of what you wrote or I wrote is controversial (or at least it shouldn't be). So what?

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes everyone who drinks water will eventually die
Yes everyone who breathes air will eventually die
Yes everyone who wears clothes will eventually die
Yet Water, breathing and clothes are not cause of death or only in some rare cases

Your thinking is very reductionist. And overly simplified.

Explain to me how massive shifts in the climate occurred long before humans had technology? How did Carbon levels at various points go sky rocketting high and at other times low without human technology? Why is that many scientist say atmospheric water and not carbon has much greater influence on weather?

when you say many you mean few scientists in fact. As there are no scientific organization or groupings any where in the world that disagree with what i posted. The reason for that is because my post is an almost word for word copy from them

Now do you mean to say that a molecule of water is a more effective radiative agent then CO2? Or that H2O is a greater representative in the atmosphere than CO2? Or do you actually mean weather and not climate as you say??

Prior to our recent historical forcings, Milankovitch cycles were the primary driver in recent geological climatic fluctuations

 

[suffolkowner]

Did you watch the video I posted? yes or no?

Keep in mind, carbon is the element of life. Its doesn't just come from technology. It comes from every single thing that has a set of lungs. As for the IPCC, warning, one of the scientist in that video worked for the IPCC and was warned in the begining of the panel to basically skew the data.

did i watch an over 1 hour long video in a few minutes? No why would I. I dont normally watch videos as their format tends to lack information density

In over 40 yrs i have never seen an alternative hypothesis presented that has withstood even cursory examination. What other scientific theory has the cv?

The IPCC is a literature review for those without the technical expertise on the subject as a whole and for those whose expertise lies in one subfield

 

[suffolkowner]

Some of observed CO2 increase is due to combustion. The climate system also warms due to waste heat. The paleoclimate record supports the idea that the planet has experienced climates more extreme in both directions. It's improbable that any "amplification" can lead to a "runaway" situation, or the planet would have become irreversibly very cold or very hot long ago.

None of what you wrote or I wrote is controversial (or at least it shouldn't be). So what?

I think youll find that "any" amplification is the important qualifier there
your statements contradict each other
yes the planet has been vey hot and very cold before because it has experienced extremes in both directions
this is not new or exciting or controversial as you say. So what exactly
Its almost like people are unfamiliar with the idea that these ideas have been studied for centuries
One can continue to pontificate on this as if it isnt known but one would be wrong

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think youll find that "any" amplification is the important qualifier there
your statements contradict each other

What do you imagine is contradictory?

 

[suffolkowner]

What do you imagine is contradictory?

The paleoclimate record supports the idea that the planet has experienced climates more extreme in both directions. It's improbable that any "amplification" can lead to a "runaway" situation, or the planet would have become irreversibly very cold or very hot long ago

sorry the error of course is in the word irreversible

of course the past swings have been reversed we have the evidence. many of which is a function of extra terrestrial and tectonic activity

why irreversible? I dont think its obvious at all if one were to run the tape again that the results would be the same

what does irreversible mean with respect to our current status?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This whole debate of whether "we" are doing it or not can be answered with one question.

Why are there trees under the ice in Greenland?

It's happened before and it will happen again, if Mother Earth decides to get rid of us she most certainly will.

Goodfella's voice " ..and d'er weren't nuttin' we could do"

 

[suffolkowner]

This whole debate of whether "we" are doing it or not can be answered with one question.

Why are there trees under the ice in Greenland?

It's happened before and it will happen again, if Mother Earth decides to get rid of us she most certainly will.

Goodfella's voice " ..and d'er weren't nuttin' we could do"

yes but its not "mother earth" its us

we are in an ice age right now as there is ice at the poles, at various times in the past this was not so

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

yes but its not "mother earth" its us

we are in an ice age right now as there is ice at the poles, at various times in the past this was not so

"was not so" So global warming then??

I guess I'm in the group of humans that aren't egotistical enough to think we have any control over Mother Earth.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This whole debate of whether "we" are doing it or not can be answered with one question.

Why are there trees under the ice in Greenland?

It's happened before and it will happen again, if Mother Earth decides to get rid of us she most certainly will.

Goodfella's voice " ..and d'er weren't nuttin' we could do"

Pole shift?

 

[suffolkowner]

"was not so" So global warming then??

I guess I'm in the group of humans that aren't egotistical enough to think we have any control over Mother Earth.

yes global warming just not anthropogenic global warming

its not control its a forcing its what happens when one unleashes millions if not hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon in a short time

 

[suffolkowner]

Pole shift?

it wouldnt be a pole shift but movement of tectonic plates