Playing Dumb on Climate Change - Scientists are doing us no favor by being so cautious

I believe that climate change has always been occurring, and it is cyclical, although there has been some deliberate weather manipulation involved also. From what I understand, the climate may be in a cooling cycle. Here's some related articles if anyone is interested in reading them.


http://www.americaspace.com/?p=21726


http://www.collective-evolution.com...ata-suggestss-global-warming-is-not-man-made/


http://spaceandscience.net/index.html


http://www.express.co.uk/news/natur...rming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder


Weather manipulation/Geo-engineering: http://weatherwars.info/


http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017704/full
 
The headline in your 2nd link states 420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made, If At All

But nowhere in the article does it mention that at no time in the last 420,000 years has the CO2 level been anywhere near as high as it is today.

203_co2-graph-1280x800.jpg
 

SeaBreeze said:
I believe that climate change has always been occurring, and it is cyclical, although there has been some deliberate weather manipulation involved also. From what I understand, the climate may be in a cooling cycle. Here's some related articles if anyone is interested in reading them........
Click to expand...



Sorry, haven't actually looked at your links so far, but here's a question that occurred to me as I read your comment SeaBreeze. If the climate is in a cooling cycle now, why is more of the Arctic Ocean open? Why are the polar icecaps melting and the sea ice disappearing so that polar bears are beginning to suffer because they can't adjust fast enough to the changes? Maybe in your reading you've come across an explanation for those situations?
 
Climate Change, and Earths warming and cooling cycles have been part of this planets history. However, in the past, there weren't 7 billion humans contributing to these phenomenon. Most people realize that our climate is changing, even the "Deniers". The question They bring up is whether this warming is human related. I think that is a mute question, and a better discussion would be What are We going to do about it. In the past, the few humans that were here could just fold their tents, and move North/South as the weather dictated. We no longer have that option. Nations have been meeting for several years, under the IPCC, but all they can agree on is where to hold next years meeting. The majority of scientists give us only a couple of decades to make any appreciable difference, and That is highly unlikely to happen. Besides fossil fuel emissions, Methane is becoming a real problem as permafrost and ocean locked ice begins to melt, plus the emissions of farm animals, are all putting Methane into the air...and it is bigger greenhouse gas than CO2. Even if we all suddenly quit using All fuels and electricity, it is doubtful that we could halt this process.

If half the predictions of the climate scientists come true, future generations will have some major challenges. Rising oceans, and increasingly severe storms, etc., are going to change the lives of millions...maybe billions. Many of our coastal cities will begin to look like Venice, and beachfront property will be available many miles inland from now. One of the best, and most informative web sites that is following this issue closely can be found at http://www.climatecentral.org/. This is perhaps the best source of ongoing coverage out there.
 
Josiah09 said:
The headline in your 2nd link states 420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made, If At All
But nowhere in the article does it mention that at no time in the last 420,000 years has the CO2 level been anywhere near as high as it is today.
Click to expand...

I've read in a few different places that it has been higher in past history. I also believe that natural causes have a much greater effect on Co2 levels, and human contribution is likely pretty insignificant. From all I've heard, and I'm certainly no scientist or expert, it appears that 'global warming' was a crises that was created by manipulating some facts and numbers, and it was done for political/money reasons.

When the earth was in its infancy, some four-and-a half billion years ago, it is believed that the atmosphere was predominantly composed of carbon dioxide, which would have put its CO2 concentration, in terms of the units most commonly used today, at something on the order of 1,000,000 ppm. Ever since, however, the CO2 content of the air - in the mean - has been dropping.

By 500 million years ago, in fact, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is estimated to have fallen to only 20 times more than it is today, or something on the order of 7500 ppm; and by 300 million years ago, it had declined to close to the air's current CO2 concentration of 370 ppm, after which it rose to about five times where it now stands at 220 million years before present (Berner 1990, 1992, 1993, 1997; Kasting 1993).

Then, during the middle Eocene, some 43 million years ago, the atmospheric CO2 concentration is estimated to have dropped to a mean value of approximately 385 ppm (Pearson and Palmer, 1999); while between 25 to 9 million years ago, it is believed to have varied between 180 and 290 ppm (Pagani et al., 1999). This latter concentration range is essentially the same range over which the air's CO2 concentration oscillated during the 100,000-year glacial cycles of the past 420,000 years (Fischer et al., 1999; Petit et al., 1999). With the inception of the Industrial Revolution, however, the air's CO2 content once again began an upward surge that has now taken it to the 370 ppm level, with the promise of significantly higher values still to come.

In addition to its variation over geologic time, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration exhibits a strong seasonal variation. It declines when the terrestrial vegetation of the Northern Hemisphere awakens from the dormancy of winter and begins to grow in the spring, thereby extracting great quantities of CO2 from the air; and it rises in the fall and winter, when much of the biomass produced over the summer dies and decomposes, releasing great quantities of CO2 back to the atmosphere. Over the past four decades that this phenomenon has been accurately measured, it has been observed that this yearly "breath of the biosphere" has risen in strength by approximately 20%, due primarily to the aerial fertilization effect of the ongoing rise in the mean value of the air's CO2 concentration (Idso et al., 1999), but influenced by a number of other factors as well (Zimov et al., 1999).


The air's CO2 content also varies spatially over the surface of the earth. Most spectacular in this regard are the local concentration enhancements observed over large metropolitan areas due to high levels of vehicular traffic and commercial activities. Idso et al. (1998a, b), for example, measured CO2 concentrations near the center of Phoenix, Arizona that were 50% greater than those measured over surrounding rural areas. Significant enhancements of the air's CO2 concentration may also be observed in the vicinity of burning coal seams and naturally occurring high-CO2springs. In Italy, the CO2-enriched air near such springs has enabled oak trees to transpire less water and thus maintain a better internal leaf water status in the face of drought than similar trees growing in ambient air a short distance away from the springs (Tognetti et al., 1998); and in Venezuela, it has allowed herbs and trees growing near a high-CO2 spring to continue to sequester carbon during dry periods of the year when plants exposed to normal air just tens of meters away actually lose carbon (Fernandez et al., 1998). In fact, Schwanz and Polle (1998) have observed that naturally-CO2-enriched trees appear to experience less stress of all kinds than trees growing in ambient air.


It is interesting to note, in this regard, that some naturally-occurring high-CO2 springs produce very high CO2concentrations in their immediate vicinity; and it is therefore only natural to wonder if such high concentrations might be detrimental to vegetation. Apparently, they are not; for studies carried out at 10,000 ppm CO2 have produced positive responses in plants (Gouk et al., 1999; Louche-Tessandier et al., 1999), as have experiments conducted at 35,000 ppm (Fernandez et al., 1998). Also of interest within this plant health context is the fact that atmospheric CO2 enrichment has been observed to have little effect on the growth of the noxious bracken weed (Caporn et al., 1999) and that it has helped oat plants infected with barley yellow dwarf virus considerably more than it has helped uninfected plants (Malmstrom and Field, 1997). Hence, even very high CO2 concentrations - some as much as 100 times greater than those of the past century - appear to benefit earth's vegetation.


A final concern related to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration is the worry that it may lead to catastrophic global warming. There is little reason to believe that such will ever occur, however, for several observations of historical changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature suggest that it is climate change that drives changes in the air's CO2 content and not vice versa.

In a study of the global warmings that signaled the demise of the last three ice ages, for example, Fischer et al. (1999) found that air temperature always rose first, followed by an increase in atmospheric CO2 some 400 to 1000 years later. Likewise, Petit et al. (1999) found that for all of the glacial inceptions of the past half-million years, air temperature consistently dropped before the air's CO2 content did, and that the CO2 decreases lagged the temperature decreases by several thousand years.

In addition, the multiple-degree-Centigrade rapid warmings and subsequent slower coolings that occurred over the course of the start-and-stop demise of the last great ice age are typically credited with causing the minor CO2 concentration changes that followed them (Staufer et al., 1998); and there are a number of other studies that demonstrate a complete uncoupling of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature during periods of significant climate change (Cheddadi et al., 1998; Gagan et al., 1998; Raymoet al., 1998; Indermuhle et al., 1999).

Hence, there are no historical analogues for CO2-induced climate change; but there are many examples of climate change-induced CO2 variations. http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/summaries/carbondioxide.php
Click to expand...



Debby said:
If the climate is in a cooling cycle now, why is more of the Arctic Ocean open? Why are the polar icecaps melting and the sea ice disappearing so that polar bears are beginning to suffer because they can't adjust fast enough to the changes? Maybe in your reading you've come across an explanation for those situations?
Click to expand...

There's lots of information about polar bears and arctic ice here if interested, I don't know if all the info about arctic ice melting and polar bears suffering because of it is true, or Co2 related.

This week, Arctic sea ice in Canada, where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live, had more sea ice than was present in the early 1970s. Globally, the ice is spitting-distance close to the 1981-2010 average calculated by the NSIDC for this date – which means lots of winter/spring hunting habitat for polar bears.
Click to expand...
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/12...-ice-in-canada-this-week-than-in-early-1970s/
Click to expand...




There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of 533,000 square miles.

In a rebound from 2012's record low, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific had remained blocked by pack-ice all year, forcing some ships to change their routes.

One ship has now managed to pass through, completing its journey on September 27.

A leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seen by the Mail on Sunday, has led some scientists to claim that the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...o-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Click to expand...



Thoughts and info here on 'climategate':
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php#axzz3Nu0hAmYR
 
I understand Jackie, but it's hard to get both sides of the story from an unbiased source. Articles which support the theory of the man-made global warming crisis also have their particular interests at heart, and utilize/sway their 'studies' and findings to support their particular beliefs or agendas.
 
Tell me SeaBreeze who's getting rich by promoting the idea that climate change is caused for the most part by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Where is the payoff? What motive beyond alerting people to an inconvenient truth is there?
 
Jackie22 said:

​


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

SeaBreeze, the first article you posted comes from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide that is sponsored by The Heartland Institute that is sponsored by Oil Companies and the Koch Bros. among others.
Click to expand...


It always pays to check who is writing articles or sponsoring the website.

And SeaBreeze, I looked at your polar bear link and saw the following: " am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field" . So does this mean she only reads other peoples studies and if so how unbiased is she in choosing the ones she'll accept?

She also indicates that there is no problem with bear numbers and that climate and ice changes are having little impact, but then in doing a Google search I came across any number of sites that suggest otherwise. Like this National Geographic site for one: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-bears-arctic-warming-animals-science-alaska/ which is titled: Polar Bear Numbers Plummeting in Alaska, Canada - What About the Rest?

After reading several sites, I get the impression that it's safe to say that there is no real consensus on bear numbers and the impacts of a warming ocean.

Considering that a tv news report this morning said that Australia is having the third hottest summer in a row, on record, I think that the effort for an over abundant human population to minimize our effect on the planet is definitely not misguided. After all, what we do today, our great grandchildren will be dealing with when we're long gone. And I think the minute you convince 'the population' that humans don't have an impact, the environmental destruction will accelerate exponentially. So unless you're a Koch brother, it would seem that the wisest strategy for continuation of life is to encourage people to care in every instance for their 'footprint'.
[h=1][/h]
 
Debby said:
I saw on a news channel 'ticker' that Australia is in the midst (not sure of your seasons there) of the third of it's hottest summers on record. Would you go along with that Dame? How hot has it been there?
Click to expand...

Haven't got the stats but month after month in 2014 we heard that this month was a record breaker for maximum temperatures, and heat waves were lasting longer. This, when we have been in a La Nina situation. God help us when the Southern Oscillation Index tips over into El Nino.

I'll see if I can find some stats for you.


This site shows graphs of various climate indicators from 1910 to present that you can trawl through.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/
 
Its not only Australia....its everywhere.

What makes setting the record for hottest year in 2014 doubly impressive is that it occurred despite the fact we’re still waiting for the start of El Niño. But this is what happens when a species keeps spewing record amounts of heat-trapping carbon pollution into the air, driving CO2 to levels in the air not seen for millions of years, when the planet was far hotter and sea levels tens of feet higher.


[FONT=Open Sans, Calibri, Trebuchet MS, Lucida Sans, Arial, sans-serif]http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/05/3607735/2014-hottest-year-by-far/[/FONT]
 
Josiah09 said:
Tell me SeaBreeze who's getting rich by promoting the idea that climate change is caused for the most part by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Where is the payoff? What motive beyond alerting people to an inconvenient truth is there?
Click to expand...

That was MY thought. Who profits.. the wind turbine companies? the solar panel companies? Perhaps.. but not on the scale Big oil profits by trying to convince people fossil fuels do not destroy the atmosphere.. I don't see an "agenda" beyond wanting to keep the planet.. oh.. and humans.. alive.
 
To all our good friends in Florida and Louisiana...please head for higher ground.. To Rick Scott and Bobby Jindal?.... are you good at treading water? lol!
 
[h=1]Kochs and Walmart Clan Wage Dirty War to Stop You From Putting Solar Panels on Your Home[/h]A new rooftop solar system is installed every three minutes in the U.S., up from one every 80 minutes just eight short years ago. If this pace continues to accelerate or even just holds steady, it will not be long before solar panels become visible, if not ubiquitous, in many neighborhoods nationwide.

That prospect is enough to upset the Koch brothers, the heirs of the Walmart fortune and the utility industry, all which are trying to stamp out the rooftop solar movement or at least make a tidy profit penalizing the people who use it. With the help of powerful lobbyists and PACs like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, they are set to do battle in statehouses across the nation in 2015.

ALEC, which has long been an opponent of renewable energy and the Obama administration’s effort to reduce carbon emissions, is working with conservative activists and corporate interests to fight homeowners who are installing solar panels on their roofs. Calling people who install rooftop solar panel “freeriders,” another word for freeloaders, the pro-corporate group is actively promoting legislation in states to charge fees, even exorbitant ones, for rooftop solar installations.

Behind the lobbyists are the megarich Walton family. The majority owners of the Walmart retail chain also own several energy interests, including a 30% stake in First Solar, which makes the parts for huge commerical installations of solar panels that operate like power plants. A recent report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance shows that the Waltons are giving lobbyist organizations millions to attack renewable energy laws at the state level. Their prime targets are the homeowners and businesses that opt for solar panels to provide their own electricity.


http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-and-wal-marts-attempt-kill-solar-panels


........speaking of Solar Panels.
 
MGG1081005.jpg
 
Josiah09 said:
Tell me SeaBreeze who's getting rich by promoting the idea that climate change is caused for the most part by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Where is the payoff? What motive beyond alerting people to an inconvenient truth is there?
Click to expand...

Beside the obvious, Al Gore, I understand that the Koch brothers (and Monsanto) also profit greatly from ethanol plants. The big corporations who make "eco-friendly cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, wireless "smart" meters, etc. All these things have very little benefit on the health of the planet or the people, and there is great profits made from the costs of all these things.

There are also some geopolitical concerns surrounding the switch from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs, too. One of the selling points of EVs is that they allow us end our dependence on foreign oil and big oil companies. In fact, however, we might just be trading “big oil” in for “big lithium.”

Your Tesla may look sleek and clean on the outside, but you owe it to everyone to know the real cost.



The lithium-ion battery market is expected to grow to $22.5 billion in the next three years, and potentially double that by the end of the decade. That’s small compared to the market for oil, but that will continue to change if more people buy electrified cars and trucks.

As for getting rid of our dependence on foreign material, well … lithium isn’t quite rare, but deposits worth mining are. And, unfortunately for the United States and Europe, the big lithium deposits are in countries like Bolivia, China, and – drum roll please – Afghanistan. None of those countries has a sterling environmental track record.


Given the very real concerns about pollution from battery production, most of which takes place in China, this starts to matter a great deal. Especially when there is so much pressure to keep the prices of batteries down.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/
Click to expand...


CFL bulbs contains other cancer-causing chemicals as well. German scientists found that several different chemicals and toxins were released when CFLs are turned on, including naphthalene (which has been linked to cancer in animals) and styrene (which has been declared “a likely human carcinogen”). A sort of electrical smog develops around these lamps, which could be dangerous.

CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills—creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways.


We’re happy that the federal government is tackling environmental problems, but this “solution” is especially short-sighted—and not unlike the national smart meter push, is creating serious health risks in the long-term.


Worse, soon consumers won’t have the option to buy incandescent lights—they simply won’t be available. The government hasn’t placed an outright ban on incandescent light bulbs.

Section 321 of EISA mandates higher efficiency standards for general service lamps. But these standards are high enough that most commonly used incandescent bulbs just won’t meet the new requirements. EISA will effectively eliminate 40-, 60-, 75-, and 100-watt incandescent bulbs. The new efficiency levels will be in full force by 2014.


Even the United Nations has acknowledged the problem of mercury in CFL bulbs, and has instated a ban on certain types of CFLs. We won’t know the full implications of that ban until the treaty is made publically available.
http://www.anh-usa.org/compact-fluorescent-light-bulbs-a-new-cancer-risk-in-your-home/
Click to expand...


The World Health Organization classifies RF as a 2B carcinogen, same as DDT and lead. Military studies here and here show pulsed radiation can cause serious health problems, including tinnitus, memory loss and seizures. Thousands of studies link biological effects to RF radiation exposure, including increased cancer risk, damage to the nervous system, adverse reproductive effects, DNA damage, and more. The top public health official in Santa Cruz County California prepared this report, confirming Smart Meters pose a health risk. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) sent this letter to the CPUC calling for a halt to wireless smart meters.

http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/
Click to expand...


E85 is often heralded as a way to reduce air pollution. Since increasing concern about global warming has focused attention on greenhouse gases, we decided to track our carbon emissions during this test.

By relating our observed fuel economy to CO2 emission figures found in the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide we determined that our gasoline round trip produced 706.5 pounds of carbon dioxide. On E85, the CO2emissions came to 703.1 pounds.

The difference came out in E85's favor, but only by a scant 0.5 percent. Call it a tie. This is certainly not the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions we had been led to expect.
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html
Click to expand...
 
Al Gore profits from warning about global warming? How? As for the others... SHOULDN'T we be developing alternative energy? Do you believe that wind turbines and solar panels should be produced and distributed for free? This is capitalism Seabreeze... Someone is going to make them and profit.. Is that wrong? I would rather see people profit from this than OIL and COAL... and destroy the planet as well..
 
Ah, Yes...Ethanol. A few years ago, it was being touted as the answer to the nations transportation energy needs, and it would be cheaper. Those who bought the E85 cars, and started using this stuff, quickly found out that their mileage suffered by as much as 20%....so even though they paid a bit less, per gallon, their cost per mile actually went up. The people I know who bought these vehicles have, for the most part, switched back to Gasoline. 5 or 6 years ago, many gas stations were putting in Ethanol pumps...now it is rare to find one. The Only ones who seem to have benefited from Ethanol were the Corn farmers, and the Ethanol plant owners. Along the way, they managed to drive food prices higher with their diversion of corn from food supplies to fuel supplies.

As for incandescent bulbs, it appears that some in Congress have been working overtime to rescind the EPA rules on lighting. There was a period, a year or two ago, when such bulbs were getting a bit hard to find. Lately, the store shelves seem to be well stocked with incandescent bulbs....so I guess the tactic is working.

Lithium needs some more research. There have been reports of a couple of these Tesla cars going up in flames due to overheated batteries, and Boeing had to do some major reworking on the lithium batteries it was using in the new 787's....also bursting into flames. That would NOT be good at 30,000 ft., over the Ocean.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I understand Jackie, but it's hard to get both sides of the story from an unbiased source. Articles which support the theory of the man-made global warming crisis also have their particular interests at heart, and utilize/sway their 'studies' and findings to support their particular beliefs or agendas.
Click to expand...

That's for sure Seabreeze.

I don't know if it's just I remember my childhood wrong, but I feel strongly about the difference in our weather patterns just compared to 50 or 55 years ago. I know I would actually have to do some reading to see if we had some of the weather back then, that we have now. And there's that "catch 22", who can you get unbiased info from, hey, maybe Farmers Almanac!!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top