Just like we were going into a new ice age in the 70's and were going to freeze to death within 10 years, or the ice caps are melting in the 90's and going to flood everyone out, or the other theories that were obviously never proven and considered ridiculous.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Beatle Bum
- Start date
If you didn't know about them getting stuck in ice, you are certainly in an echo chamber. Objective readers knew that so it was no surprise.
I don't know if I'd call it lying. I think it's mostly echo chamber with some spin advocacy thinking the ends justify the means; because you think the situation is indeed dire.
1) Crop production is waayyyy up
2) Water shortages are caused by people moving to where there has never been water
3) Storm damages are caused by people moving to the coast
I haven’t heard of fires or heat waves around the globe, just in North America. If that’s incorrect I would love to know but I haven’t seen anyone saying people in Greece or Mongolia are overheating and dying.
Have you ever seen a graph of the onset of glaciation and the subsequent thaw when ice retreats? The line looks like a series of capital Ns. The melt happens really quickly. The vertical lines. The advance happens really slowly. That's the long 45 degree downstroke. That happens over tens of thousands of years. There were maybe 4 scientists working of glaciation at the time. I've never read the papers involved. Have you? I've seen the headlines and covers in popular newspapers and magazines. What do you imagine their accuracy was? Could you even find the actual journal articles the healdlines were based on? I couldn't.
But the story about scientists predicting ice ages is just a whac-a-mole talking point. Someone trots it out when they don't have anything else. I bet there were more scientists at oil companies laughing up their sleeves at the idea. They knew AGW was on the horizon.
Last edited:
Just give me a citation for the story you mentioned. I have never seen it or heard of it.
We all should have known that those scientists were wrong, but the scientists beating the drums of catastrophe today have it correct? The literature on climate change, as I have heard it discussed by scientists, is not as dramatic as the fearful here would promote. The antagonists parse through it for the worst possible predictions to scare/manipulate people and completely avoid the realities and positives of a warming climate.
Nevertheless, I planted 4 new trees this year to offset my contributions, not to mention the many woody shrubs and trees I have planted over the past few years. In short, I am good, because I care.
Btw, rather than plagiarize, people should just link to their internet sources.
I have no idea what the papers said since I've never seen them. At the time Milinkovic Cycles were fairly novel science. The papers could have been predicting the bottom of the cycle and a new advancement of glaciers. Or even just describing the process. Then a magazine like Time ran with it. We have at this point no idea what the papers actually said. If you find them and read them tell us what they said, There were probably tens of thousands of atmospheric scientists at the time. The work of 4 would hardly constitute a quorum.
Science fusses over data. Evidence. It isn't in the business of proof. Scientists point to the current record of a steady increase in temps and atmospheric CO2. They point to the evidence for the connection between the two. We are surrounded by expertise we rely on and don't understand.
Oh, so it’s the “quorum” of scientists that should make this real? Quorums that attempt to silence naysayers are to believed? Quorums in science are never wrong? The current quorum believes that carbon credits are the answer?
According to the quorum, what are the positive impacts of climate change?
You can non-radioative emit deez nuts!
It’s refreshing to watch the ongoing saga of the material that is claimed to be superconductive at room temperature and ambient pressure, and realize science does exist.
We could just “trust the experts” and believe them that they discovered the material they claim to have discovered.
Problem for them is all the profit lies in the practical application of their research.
Juxtapose that against the global warming “science” where we aren’t allowed to ask questions. The profit all lies in the “solutions” to that problem and are dependent on government coercion, not a practical application of the science.
If there was profit (or grants) in accurate climate research and modeling, it’d be a different story.
We could just “trust the experts” and believe them that they discovered the material they claim to have discovered.
Problem for them is all the profit lies in the practical application of their research.
Juxtapose that against the global warming “science” where we aren’t allowed to ask questions. The profit all lies in the “solutions” to that problem and are dependent on government coercion, not a practical application of the science.
If there was profit (or grants) in accurate climate research and modeling, it’d be a different story.
I still can't get a solid read on whether this is going to be a major breakthrough or not. As in, 1) it's going to be VERY difficult to produce and 2) it's showing resistance.
Keep your hair shirt on. The "quorum" comment was in relation to the assertion that "scientists believed" as if the belief was a general one among scientists. It wasn't. I wasn't claiming authority due to numbers.
We have 11 percent more ice cap now (when last measured in 2021) than in 2007. This is like anything else where you can measure it whenever you want to get the result you want. There has been no significant decrease in ice caps north or south but you don't hear that from the media because it's against the agenda. NASA has stated as much and so have other scientists. Get off google and find another source for information.
I'm not sure where you get your news about sea ice. Try NSIDC.org
Arctic Ice
If you don't want to click the link. Arctic ice is around average.
Antarctic Ice
If you don't want to click the link, Antarctic ice is currently 618,000 sq. miles below the previous record. 1 million sq miles less than the 1981-2010 average.
Yep. Liberal climate change advocates don't usually take into account something that should be in all statistical studies. You MUST have a representative sample. The climate warms and cools over THOUSANDS of years in cycles. The industrial revolution is like 100+ years old? Even if you went back to the height of the Roman empire, that was a couple thousand years. You cannot point to the last 30 or 40 years and conflate those numbers into a disaster.
For one thing there were ice ages and then there weren't.
No one knows much for sure. Definitely not enough to proclaim with this degree of certainty to uproot all of modern life based on nothing more than an at best hunch
I think he was looking for “scientists” as an answer so he could then do a “gotcha.”
"In 1931, 3.7 million people died from natural disasters. In 2018, just 11,000 did. And that decline occurred over a period when the global population quadrupled.
What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?
Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.
What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines."
The scare tactics that the alarmist throw out there is just that, scare tactics to bolster a position of power and greed from the left.
Once again, the earth has heated up and cooled for millions of years.
What about sea level rise? IPCC estimates sea level could rise two feet (0.6 meters) by 2100. Does that sound apocalyptic or even “unmanageable”?
Consider that one-third of the Netherlands is below sea level, and some areas are seven meters below sea level. You might object that Netherlands is rich while Bangladesh is poor. But the Netherlands adapted to living below sea level 400 years ago. Technology has improved a bit since then.
What about claims of crop failure, famine, and mass death? That’s science fiction, not science. Humans today produce enough food for 10 billion people, or 25% more than we need, and scientific bodies predict increases in that share, not declines."
The scare tactics that the alarmist throw out there is just that, scare tactics to bolster a position of power and greed from the left.
Once again, the earth has heated up and cooled for millions of years.
Dead carbon or non-radioactive carbon(NRC) is how scientists measuring carbon in the atmosphere, know that unprecedented increase in Carbon emission is coming from old and dead fossil fuels.prehistoric dead carbon.....
You’re welcome
If there was truly global warming, raw data would show a very clear upward trend. There isn't one. To get one, they had to manipulate the data which was the subject of that trove of emails.
Iirc raw data actually showed a slight cooling trend. It's also why now it's called climate disruption, until they change it again.
True, there was in recent years up until this year or last a slight cooling trend which is why some scientists were prompted to say "Don't look at the short-term figures, go back 140 years." Nothing like picking and choosing the time frame that fits your agenda. Then on the other hand they have been raving about record temperatures this year in a few areas. Makes you wonder how long these people have actually payed attention to what is going on in the world. We have record breaking temps of cold and hot in many areas each year.
The Earth is approx. 4.6 billion years old. We know it was much warmer in the past as that is how planets are formed. They are in fact molten rock for hundreds of millions of years. And planetary bodies change over time. The Sahara used to be a tropical forest until a change in the Earth's tilt. Jupiter's great red spot is shrinking. Mars used to have an atmosphere and a active core. So, who is to say what the "norm" is, especially over such vast amounts of time?
Now, considering the vastness of the Earth's age, we are supposed to believe that since the year 1800 humans have managed to wreck the climate of a planet that has warmed and cooled hundreds, if not thousands of times? In a 200 year period? After all the world-wide natural disasters, comet impacts, thousands of active/inactive Sun cycles, seismic upheavals and other calamities....it is man that has destroyed the planet?
Just stop.
Now, considering the vastness of the Earth's age, we are supposed to believe that since the year 1800 humans have managed to wreck the climate of a planet that has warmed and cooled hundreds, if not thousands of times? In a 200 year period? After all the world-wide natural disasters, comet impacts, thousands of active/inactive Sun cycles, seismic upheavals and other calamities....it is man that has destroyed the planet?
Just stop.
Prove it or it’s fake news.
This could actually be a clip from the weather channel these days.
The climate alarmists truly believe they are some kind of gods when it comes to imparting change. The arrogance is quite astonishing.
Last edited:
Ask and it shall be given to you. Vertical axis is global temperature change. Horizontal axis is time.
The graph below is for CO2/temps from various Antarctic ice cores. Advancing ice is reflected in the angular downstrokes -- it takes a long time for ice to accumulate and advance. Warming speed is reflected by the near vertical upstrokes. When the atmosphere warms it does so in a hurry. Upper vertical axis is marked in ppm of CO2. Lower vertical is temp change in Celsius. Horizontal axis is time. This is the record for the previous 800.000 years. I'm not sure what year this was published but atmospheric CO2 is at 418 ppm today so this graph is very recent. One of the easy things to miss is that our increase in atmospheric CO2 is more than twice the increase the planet sees during glacial advance and retreat. The graph's horizontal is ticked in 10,000 year increments so the slight angle of previous increases in CO2 actually represents a span of many thousands of years. In contrast, the leap from 280 to 418 is around 150 years. Just to give you a feel for the preposterous speed of the change. Another thing that is so obvious it might be missed is how tightly temperature and atmospheric CO2 are bound together. The two move together like old fashioned dancers.
I wouldn’t use this. They will dismiss real science, unless you can show proof that bill oreilly and megyn fox were present for all measurementsAsk and it shall be given to you. Vertical axis is global temperature change. Horizontal axis is time.
The graph below is for CO2/temps from various Antarctic ice cores. Advancing ice is reflected in the angular downstrokes -- it takes a long time for ice to accumulate and advance. Warming speed is reflected by the near vertical upstrokes. When the atmosphere warms it does so in a hurry. Upper vertical axis is marked in ppm of CO2. Lower vertical is temp change in Celsius. Horizontal axis is time. This is the record for the previous 800.000 years. I'm not sure what year this was published but atmospheric CO2 is at 418 ppm today so this graph is very recent. One of the easy things to miss is that our increase in atmospheric CO2 is more than twice the increase the planet sees during glacial advance and retreat. The graph's horizontal is ticked in 10,000 year increments so the slight angle of previous increases in CO2 actually represents a span of many thousands of years. In contrast, the leap from 280 to 418 is around 150 years. Just to give you a feel for the preposterous speed of the change. Another thing that is so obvious it might be missed is how tightly temperature and atmospheric CO2 are bound together. The two move together like old fashioned dancers.
Ask and it shall be given to you. Vertical axis is global temperature change. Horizontal axis is time.
The graph below is for CO2/temps from various Antarctic ice cores. Advancing ice is reflected in the angular downstrokes -- it takes a long time for ice to accumulate and advance. Warming speed is reflected by the near vertical upstrokes. When the atmosphere warms it does so in a hurry. Upper vertical axis is marked in ppm of CO2. Lower vertical is temp change in Celsius. Horizontal axis is time. This is the record for the previous 800.000 years. I'm not sure what year this was published but atmospheric CO2 is at 418 ppm today so this graph is very recent. One of the easy things to miss is that our increase in atmospheric CO2 is more than twice the increase the planet sees during glacial advance and retreat. The graph's horizontal is ticked in 10,000 year increments so the slight angle of previous increases in CO2 actually represents a span of many thousands of years. In contrast, the leap from 280 to 418 is around 150 years. Just to give you a feel for the preposterous speed of the change. Another thing that is so obvious it might be missed is how tightly temperature and atmospheric CO2 are bound together. The two move together like old fashioned dancers.
I said raw data. This is not raw data.