What are your thoughts on global warming?

[Bullfrog]

I was watching the National Geographic channel last week about early man and the migration of people. Most of the water was locked up in ice so people were free to wander in search of food and better places to live for thousands of years.

As the climate warmed the sea levels rose cutting a lot of people off on land masses that were once connected by ice. Rising seas today are a cause of alarm though and proof of "climate change" that is now blamed on man.

Evidence also suggests that a large comet about 3 miles across exploded over southern Canada further raising temperatures which killed off mastodons, wooly mammoths and the giant sloths that roamed the earth and the U.S. during the ice age.

They suggest that a slight change in the earths orbit, ocean currents and particulate matter raised from the comet all contributed to the end of the last ice age and the "climate change" that everyone is screaming about today.

One thing is certain, the earth has been warming for 11,700 years.

 

[adavisus]

You can find various events polluted the planet in the geologic record

One of them is the Permian period when thousands of years of volcanic emissions of co2 from the siberian tar pits the poles were melted and the equatorial seas became so hot they became anoxic, dead

The planet is known to be repeating that extinction event at a far faster rate than the permian period, going from a climate of less than 300ppm co2 to 1000ppm co2 and triggering methane emissions in arctic waters

Its very easy to look up the glaciation cycle on wikipedia, we should be on a planet that is cooling very slowly towards another glaciation phase. We are not, the planet is warming at a rate it has never, ever done before

Yup theres actual evidence of several meteorite events big enough to do extinction events (not as big as the Permian) One hit where Mexico is (Chicxulub crater), two hit where India is (Shiva crater), leaving craters and rare minerals in the geologic record to prove it. Way before Mammoth time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth#Largest_craters_.2810_Ma_or_more.29

Evidence of mammoth extinctions coincides with the rampage of homonids across their lands, EATING THEM. The small mammoths of Wrangel Island survived until 1650 BC, 3,600 years ago, so there was no 'mass extinction during the 55 million year history (many ice ages and several comet craters) of mammoths, other than folk ate the last one

Here's a massive crater event smack dab in the middle of the mammoth era, which did not bump them off

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popigai_crater

 

[MoonShadows]

You can find various events polluted the planet in the geologic record

One of them is the Permian period when thousands of years of volcanic emissions of co2 from the siberian tar pits the poles were melted and the equatorial seas became so hot they became anoxic, dead

The planet is known to be repeating that extinction event at a far faster rate than the permian period, going from a climate of less than 300ppm co2 to 1000ppm co2 and triggering methane emissions in arctic waters

But does that mean it is man-made? Or, is it a combination of natural events and man-made intervention? Or, is it all natural? Just because it is happening faster does not mean it is man-made. I do not deny man may be contributing, but no one really knows how much and for sure, do they? Just because we read man is the main culprit doesn't make it true...especially with all the money to be made off the notion of man-made global warming and the progressive agenda.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

If Man is exacerbating global warming/climate change by even the slightest amount, then that is too damn much IMO.

 

[MoonShadows]

If Man is exacerbating global warming/climate change by even the slightest amount, then that is too damn much IMO.

Yup, but no one really seems to know the truth since the whole subject appears to be clouded with bias, politics and money.

 

[adavisus]

But does that mean it is man-made? Or, is it a combination of natural events and man-made intervention? Or, is it all natural? Just because it is happening faster does not mean it is man-made. I do not deny man may be contributing, but no one really knows how much and for sure, do they? Just because we read man is the main culprit doesn't make it true...especially with all the money to be made off the notion of man-made global warming and the progressive agenda.

Yup, the calculations have been done, scientists know how and why co2 levels are ramming higher, and at what rate industrial output is increasing

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.html

The numbers are put into perspective here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

What money made off global warming. Scientists do the job they are paid for. Science. Al Gore spends money he made from three succesful business ventures to indulge in a hobby that he believes in

Its Exxon and Koch (and other industrialists) making the money out of polluting the planet and dumping the social costs on others, there's a bazillion crooks, hack writers and computer nerds who have a hand out for the billions they spend on fraud ($500 billion through two super pacs)

Feel free to wade into all the frauds sponsored by exxon and koch over the years on politifact and snopes

Their underlings pop up all over social media, spouting 'the big lie' oh look, here's one, debunked

http://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/

 

[MitchM]

View attachment 97402 ...

Its very easy to look up the glaciation cycle on wikipedia, we should be on a planet that is cooling very slowly towards another glaciation phase. We are not, the planet is warming at a rate it has never, ever done before

...

Where do you get that the planet should be going into another ice age? I tried going through the glaciation search you mentioned and got lost in the details.
I do know that there's a solar minimum predicted in the next 30 years or so, but the earth is coming out of it's coldest period in the last 500 million years. Why would the temperature dip back down now?

 

[adavisus]

The ice age cycle, is cyclical. We are are currently at the peak of the usual cycle (see englender table)

Last time I looked the Maunder cycle is close to insignificant on temp, maybe influencing maybe 1f diff or less at best, however it's a useful bit off technowaffle to fluff the notion of conspiracy folk

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_minimum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

Your holocene trend does show the peak has levelled off and should be going downward next, not, sharply upward.... The slow carbon cycle pattern that dictates the ice age cycle, has been shattered

Interesting timeline, showing how it took 50 million years for the co2 levels triggered by the permian extinction event, took to calm down from Eocene times, to what we knew once in the 19c

Looking at predictors of global warming, you can find anomalies typically in the 10-20c range in buffer zones, that is where the energy is being mopped up, to compare to pre 1980 averages. We can anticipate that extending outward from arctic zones until the whole planet, is back in the eocene range....

 

[MitchM]

ok, thanks.

 

[Bullfrog]

None of us were here 50 million years ago, scientists speculate by what evidence they can observe or are inclined to find. Mass extinctions did take place due to impacts by meteors and comets but man did not kill and eat all of the mastodons, wooly mammoths and giant sloths into extinction. There is evidence of this that fits the timeline in the in the Manicouagan crater in Quebec.

The alleged mammoth-killing impact is also alleged to have triggered the Younger Dryas. At the time, 12,900 years ago, the continental ice sheets were in full retreat from the last Ice Age, and the planet was nearly as warm as it is now.

Suddenly, in a matter of decades, glacial temperatures returned, and the ice advanced again. The cold lasted 1,500 years, then ended even more suddenly than it had begun.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science/

We can stop eating meat, using plastic, driving cars, using electricity, tax and regulate our industries to the point of bankruptcy but China, Russia and the European Union will continue to do so. The Paris Agreement is pretty much doomed. The Paris Agreement is the mother and father of one-sided deals. It requires the United States to keep cutting its emissions in perpetuity irrespective of what anyone else does. Unlike the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (which the Senate would have rejected had Bill Clinton sent it to the Senate), there are no escape hatches. It forces the U.S. to play by its own rules while letting everyone else play by their own. Short of repudiating the whole treaty, once on the escalator, there’s no way off.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...te-agreement-us-should-abandon-it-learn-china

I don't like the fact that industry is spewing pollutants into the air and water but we are actually powerless to stop the rest of the world from doing it.

Regardless of what we do the climate will continue to change as it always has and we are not able to control what other countries do, if it even has any contribution to global warming. For every document that can be presented to prove t, one can be presented to debunk it.

 

[Bullfrog]

Again, there is a lot of money to be made with this agenda.
Global warming alarmism is big business. On one side you have Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, The Climate Project and dozens upon dozens of other non-governmental organizations who solicit hundreds of millions from private donors and from government, and who in turn award lucrative grants to further their agenda.

You also have the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, both Houses of Congress and many more government agencies, spraying global warming money at anything that moves and at staggering rates — billions of dollars.

And then you also have every major and minor university — with contributions from every department, from Critical Literature Theory to Women’s Studies — all with their hands out and eager to provide the support Greenpeace, the government and others desire. Add to that another two or three dozen think tanks which are also sniffing for grants or which support government intervention to do the impossible and stop the earth’s climate from changing.

Every scientific organization which is dependent on grant money has released a statement saying “something must be done” about global warming. They’re supported, fawned over and feted by just about every news and media agency. And don’t forget the leadership of most major organized religions have their own statements — and their hands out.

We’re not done: we still have to add the dozens of Solyndra-type companies eager to sell the government products, to get “green” subsidies or to support its global-warming agenda. Included in that list are oil companies. Oil companies?

Yes. Oil giants aren’t foolish. They want to benefit — and also don’t want to suffer from — the mania that surrounds all things climate change. Their activities are often mercenary: Oil companies will and do fund research that casts a bad light on coal, its main competitor, in hopes of lessening competition but also in expectation of securing peace with activist groups.

For instance, ExxonMobil recently pledged to give Stanford University “up to $100 million in grant money over 10 years to support climate and energy research.” As reported by the website No Tricks Zone:

Four big international companies, including the oil giant ExxonMobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening global warming … In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program …

Shell Oil since 1999 handed out $8.5 million in environmental grants. Like ExxonMobil, many grants flowed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, but $1.2 million went to the Nature Conservancy; the remainder was spread to several different environmentally-minded groups.

According to The Washington Times British Petroleum regularly gave to several environmental groups, such as “Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Resources Institute, various branches of the Audubon Society, the Wildlife Habitat Council.” It’s important to understand that these groups accepted the money BP gave them. The Washington Post confirms the Nature Conservancy pocketed over “$10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations.”

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” $79 billion.

And Farrell, our stalwart sociologist, nabbed $126,000 from the EPA between 2012 and 2014, and another $18,500 from the National Science Foundation to study the environment and society. Doubtless he will be similarly rewarded in the future. Funny he never mentioned his funding, nor the funding of all those pushing scenarios of the world’s end.

https://stream.org/big-money-in-global-warming-alarmism/

 

[adavisus]

Joanne Nova has documented the massive amount of money pouring from government into the pockets of individuals and groups associated with the environment. “The U.S. government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.” $79 billion.

The $79 billion spent on climate science research (over a 27 year period) Is peanuts compared to the Trillions spent on fossil fuel research, which is degrading the planet right from the ozone layer, all the way to dumping pcp's at the very bottom of seas.

Personally I'd like to know when eating fish from which seas ends because the sea died, Little things like that. I was fond of cod

I suspect folk who build sea walls, harbours, dams, bridges, roads, railways, housing, would like to know what standards to develop, to endure storms, rain, fires, floods in future.... No never mind crops

Right now, a lot of them are falling to bits, failing for lack of knowledge

Do feel free to research it....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/absurd-claim-climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/glob...g-solutions-fight-misinformation#.WKim9fK5z4x

 

[adavisus]

None of us were here 50 million years ago, scientists speculate by what evidence they can observe or are inclined to find. Mass extinctions did take place due to impacts by meteors and comets but man did not kill and eat all of the mastodons, wooly mammoths and giant sloths into extinction. There is evidence of this that fits the timeline in the in the Manicouagan crater in Quebec

Yup, man did finish them off, that is consensus of scientific opinion, a combo of climate change and mastodon guzzlers finished them off. Quit making excuses for climate change. I don't think you can blame shift comets, as the species developed over 50 million years and endured umpteen documented massive impacts

"Analysis of tusks of mastodons from the American Great Lakes region over a span of several thousand years prior to their extinction in the area shows a trend of declining age at maturation; this is contrary to what one would expect if they were experiencing stresses from an unfavorable environment, but is consistent with a reduction in intraspecific competition that would result from a population being reduced by human hunting"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon

 

[MitchM]

The $79 billion spent on climate science research (over a 27 year period) Is peanuts compared to the Trillions spent on fossil fuel research, which is degrading the planet right from the ozone layer, all the way to dumping pcp's at the very bottom of seas.

...

Keep in mind that without the profits from exploiting the earth's resources, there would be no research into climate change.
We would all still be living in a stone age/medieval period type environment.

Humans are just as much part of the environment as are polar bears and the spotted owl.

.

 

[MitchM]

... which is degrading the planet right from the ozone layer, all the way to dumping pcp's at the very bottom of seas.

...

"Degrading the planet" is a mischaracterization.

The planet earth is a collection of chemical elements. It has always been and will always be in a state of change.


.