Well, if we cannot control the weather, why do we keep pretending we can? Seems every story and many political campaigns are premised upon the fiction that we can control “climate change,” if we want.
Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Beatle Bum
- Start date
Natural increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more. The warm episodes (interglacials) began with a small increase in incoming sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere due to variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun and its axis of rotation. (For more details, see the “Milankovitch cycles and ice ages” section of our Climate change: incoming sunlight article.) That little bit of extra sunlight caused a little bit of warming. As the oceans warmed, they outgassed carbon dioxide—like a can of soda going flat in the heat of a summer day. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere greatly amplified the initial, solar-driven warming.
Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores and other paleoclimate evidence, we know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, atmospheric carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 ppm or less.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years based on ice-core data (light purple line) compared to 2022 concentration (bright purple dot). The peaks and valleys in the line show ice ages (low CO2) and warmer interglacials (higher CO2). Throughout that time, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm (light purple dot, between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago). The increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. In fact, on the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present (dashed purple line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.
By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.
If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide could be 800 ppm or higher—conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years.
Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores and other paleoclimate evidence, we know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, atmospheric carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 ppm or less.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years based on ice-core data (light purple line) compared to 2022 concentration (bright purple dot). The peaks and valleys in the line show ice ages (low CO2) and warmer interglacials (higher CO2). Throughout that time, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm (light purple dot, between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago). The increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. In fact, on the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present (dashed purple line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.
By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.
If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide could be 800 ppm or higher—conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years.
Last edited:
French break fusion record … fusion potential !!
newatlas.com
France runs fusion reactor for record 22 minutes
France has upped the ante in the quest for fusion power by maintaining a plasma reaction for over 22 minutes – a new record. The milestone was reached on February 12 at the Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives (CEA) WEST Tokamak reactor.
newatlas.com
Oil and gas companies are influencing what Canadian students learn about climate change, funding and supplying educational materials that frame the issue to serve their interests, health and climate advocates warn in a new report.
At least 39 fossil fuel companies and 12 industry-linked organizations – including Shell, TC Energy, and the Pathways Alliance – have supplied classroom resources that downplay the sector’s role in driving global heating, states a new report. The materials emphasize consumer responsibility and technological solutions, while largely omitting the need for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.
Published by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and the parent-led advocacy group For Our Kids, the Polluting Education report argues that industry-backed materials present a distorted picture to students, steering them toward false solutions.
Énergir, for example, has sponsored a Quebec school program since 2016, encouraging children and families to “commit to reducing their carbon footprint and then sell their reductions to other participants as carbon credits.”
At least 39 fossil fuel companies and 12 industry-linked organizations – including Shell, TC Energy, and the Pathways Alliance – have supplied classroom resources that downplay the sector’s role in driving global heating, states a new report. The materials emphasize consumer responsibility and technological solutions, while largely omitting the need for a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.
Published by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) and the parent-led advocacy group For Our Kids, the Polluting Education report argues that industry-backed materials present a distorted picture to students, steering them toward false solutions.
Industry-backed perspectives on climate change
Through direct contact with schools, government partnerships, and funding for third-party education, oil and gas interests like Shell, Imperial Oil, and Cenovus have a heavy influence on what Canadian kids learn, the report authors say.Énergir, for example, has sponsored a Quebec school program since 2016, encouraging children and families to “commit to reducing their carbon footprint and then sell their reductions to other participants as carbon credits.”
Farmers suing for Climate change language removal.
Oh oh. The Germans are contemplating restarting the nuclear power program.
Texas too!!!
Texas too!!!
Nuclear is the correct answer.
Fossil Fuels until Nuclear is readily available
And So called green energy just for funsies
U.S. is skipping the meeting …
Last edited:
Scientists said the Trump administration will be hard-pressed to find scientific justification — or legitimate scientists — to show how greenhouse gases are not a threat to people.
“This one of those cases where they can’t contest the science and they’re going to have a legal way around,” Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said.
“This one of those cases where they can’t contest the science and they’re going to have a legal way around,” Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer said.
There is no possible world in which greenhouse gases are not a threat to public health,” said Brown University climate scientist Kim Cobb. “It’s simple physics coming up against simple physiology and biology, and the limits of our existing infrastructure to protect us against worsening climate-fueled extremes.”
Who I am pretty much 1000% sure has to get federal funding to continue to "prove" their stance. So yeah, I am sure she wholeheartedly believes what she's saying but she is also very motivated to get funding as a part of her goal to prove something that really doesn't exist.
Interesting article claims that 36 companies are responsible for half of the world's carbon emissions. Very few US companies are on the list and in none of the top ten spots. The big emmiters are Chinese, Russian, Indian and Middle East energy companies. We aren't the problem even though we have the world's largest economy.
Last edited:
Many recent articles out, like this one:
The party that cares about your environment:
But we need to launder billions of Green New Scam dollars through the DoD to fund demo☭rats AND SUPPORT cLiMaTe cHaNgE!!11!
Also, those suffering from gender dysphoria mental illness are not allowed in the military. OMG!11!!
Also, those suffering from gender dysphoria mental illness are not allowed in the military. OMG!11!!
Pretty much sums up all of my concerns using facts and proven propaganda. I assume the believers like GJNorman just assume that the folks that get paid out the *** are telling the truth though. I would like one of them to watch the video and give me an honest take on why they would still believe in the global hoax.
I appreciate the advice and the tone. thinking for myself: The climate has warmed, since I was born in my opinion. Much smarter people than me, scientists, that study the climate every day, overwhelmingly believe the climate is warming due to man's carbon emmisssions.
Billions, maybe trillions have been spent by exxon and the others on denying CC. EXXON studied the climate in the 70's and determined global warming was true.
So basically you are saying that facts dont matter and you are going to conform to a group of people that have been consistently swayed by funding and have tailored their metrics to what supports their really weak hypothesis. Got it. Pretty much what I expected from you. Again, challenge yourself and challenge the opinion to get to the truth. Sheeple, you guys make me crazy.
Natural increases in carbon dioxide concentrations have periodically warmed Earth’s temperature during ice age cycles over the past million years or more. The warm episodes (interglacials) began with a small increase in incoming sunlight in the Northern Hemisphere due to variations in Earth’s orbit around the Sun and its axis of rotation. (For more details, see the “Milankovitch cycles and ice ages” section of our Climate change: incoming sunlight article.) That little bit of extra sunlight caused a little bit of warming. As the oceans warmed, they outgassed carbon dioxide—like a can of soda going flat in the heat of a summer day. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere greatly amplified the initial, solar-driven warming.
Based on air bubbles trapped in mile-thick ice cores and other paleoclimate evidence, we know that during the ice age cycles of the past million years or so, atmospheric carbon dioxide never exceeded 300 ppm. Before the Industrial Revolution started in the mid-1700s, atmospheric carbon dioxide was 280 ppm or less.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years based on ice-core data (light purple line) compared to 2022 concentration (bright purple dot). The peaks and valleys in the line show ice ages (low CO2) and warmer interglacials (higher CO2). Throughout that time, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm (light purple dot, between 300,000 and 400,000 years ago). The increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. In fact, on the geologic time scale, the increase from the end of the last ice age to the present (dashed purple line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.
By the time continuous observations began at Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958, global atmospheric carbon dioxide was already 315 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was roughly 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.
If global energy demand continues to grow rapidly and we meet it mostly with fossil fuels, human emissions of carbon dioxide could reach 75 billion tons per year or more by the end of the century. Atmospheric carbon dioxide could be 800 ppm or higher—conditions not seen on Earth for close to 50 million years.
That's why you always use more data rather than less when more data is available. More co2 doesn't end life. There was actually more life on Earth when we had more co2. All plant life would die at 150ppm co2. How about we just say thanks to the oil industry for saving life on Earth.
That's actual data, which is not relevant when scientists create their prove their
That's why you always use more data rather than less when more data is available. More co2 doesn't end life. There was actually more life on Earth when we had more co2. All plant life would die at 150ppm co2. How about we just say thanks to the oil industry for saving life on Earth.
The world's largest carbon emitters are in China, Saudi Arabia, India and Russia. Why are you crying about Exxon? They are not even in the top 10 of carbon producers. Those big carbon producers aren't doing squat to lower their carbon levels.
What facts are referring to? The Hottest year on the globe facts from last year?
Since you are probably a maga guy, here are Elon's thoughts on global warming
Elon Musk has a complex view on climate change, shifting from a staunch advocate for action and a "super pro-climate" stance to downplaying the urgency of the issue and focusing on technological solutions like carbon capture and electric vehicles, while also supporting a more "hands-off" approach to environmental regulations.
Here's a breakdown of his positions:
- Initial Pro-Climate Stance:
Musk initially presented himself as a climate-concerned CEO, emphasizing the need to reduce carbon emissions through electric vehicles and renewable energy. He even said in 2015 that the worst-case scenario of delaying the renewable energy transition was "more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined".
- Shift in Focus:
Musk's views seem to have shifted, focusing on specific technologies to combat climate change rather than broad policy changes or public awareness campaigns. He emphasized Tesla's role in electrifying vehicles and promoted renewable energy through SolarCity (now part of Tesla).
- Downplaying Urgency:
While acknowledging the reality of global warming, Musk now appears to believe that the existential risks from climate-related disasters have been "overblown". He recently suggested that while global warming is significant in the long term, the immediate risk is not as high as alarmist claims.
- Emphasis on Technology:
Musk's focus shifted to technological solutions, including carbon capture, and he has invested in initiatives to fund innovative technologies that can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, like the $100 million XPrize for Carbon Removal.
- Political Leanings:
Musk's views on climate change seem to align with a more right-leaning approach, with some critics stating that he has become more of an "opportunist" focusing on government contracts for geoengineering as the costs of climate change become expensive.
- Recent Comments and Actions:
According to The Guardian, Musk has been seen as less concerned about the urgency of climate change, and has downplayed the impact of meat consumption on climate, leading to criticism from environmental groups. As noted by Politico.com, he also has been seen as an advisor to Donald Trump on climate change
- Shift in Focus:
You don't understand because............you didn't read the EXXON article i posted
YOu do realize you are knocking the scientists that study the climate 60 hours a week and 52 weeks a year, in favor of what trump wants you to believe.
These scientists make 150,000 a year, while big oil CEOs make 150,000,000 a year.
Big oil has admitted thru their own studies that fossil fuels cause global warming
You have never provided any explanation for facts, nor do your "real scientists". They rely on snippets of data and not actual historical data which completely disproves any type of impact on temperature or climate other than normal fluctuations that will ABSOLUTELY occur over time. Spend a hour and watch the video and then show me where current science dispels the facts that they lay out or you have zero credibility. "Believing the science" is about as worthless for climate as it was for COVID. It's been proven incorrect but you gullible sheeple continue to "Believe" even when it blatantly obvious that money is driving the scientists to say whatever a small group of very bad people want them to say. This is 100% an attempt to control the masses, not a global crisis. You and the others need to open your eyes and think for yourself.
I understand that US companies are not the main problem with regard to carbon. China, Russia, India and Middle East energy companies are not curbing their emissions and they are the ones that pollute the most.
China, India, Australia, Japan and Europe are investing by the billions in Renewable energy