• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Global Warming is a hoax?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure what part of my first paragraph is "fallacious". I certainly agree that we do not know all that we could- or even all taht we should- before basing potential remedies on what could well be flawed science. After all, it wasn't all that long ago- the 1970s- (guess that depends on your age) that 'experts' were predicting a coming "ice age". Had we acted precipitously then in an effort to warm the planet, what might the effect be now?
We know that the Earth has been warmer than it is now, absent the very existence of humans. We have found fossils of temperate flora and fauna near the Arctic Circle, for example.
We also know that the Earth has been warmer than it is now during human history, though well before the Industrial revolution, during the Roman Warm Period and again during the Medieval Warming Period.
Your call for more study is an excellent one, and I heartily echo it. I wish that more people- on both sides of the debate- thought that way. But the alarmists have a vested interest- income redistribution and governmental control not the least among them- in pretending that there is no debate and that the science is "settled".
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
Sorry, guess I should have explained the fallacy. Just because dramatic swings in temperature occurred before the industrial revolution does not mean man could not be the cause of future changes.

I think so, Well, maybe. I don't know for sure. But then no one does...

Anyway, I have no qualms about what you are saying otherwise.

Unlike glarg and Konrad. Heh. Been brushing up on my high atmospheric physics (physics major in late 70's), Seems like there is still a lot of dispute about solar wind earth atmosphere interaction. NASA is trying to find out. Found a couple interesting (and contradictory) papers from the last decade that are way over my head. Some fascinating stuff on Venus as well.

Anyway there is massive interaction between solar wind and the earth's magnetosphere, the argument seems to be over just how much penetration of earth's atmosphere.

Politically I wish a pox on both 'believers' and 'deniers'.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser13838

I'm not sure what part of my first paragraph is "fallacious". I certainly agree that we do not know all that we could- or even all taht we should- before basing potential remedies on what could well be flawed science. After all, it wasn't all that long ago- the 1970s- (guess that depends on your age) that 'experts' were predicting a coming "ice age". Had we acted precipitously then in an effort to warm the planet, what might the effect be now?

I think you are seriously overstating the scientific support of global cooling. Individual scientists are occasionally wrong but the scientific process is a self-correcting mechanism to get rid of the hypotheses that don't predict what occurs in nature and replace them with those that do.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I think you are seriously overstating the scientific support of global cooling. Individual scientists are occasionally wrong but the scientific process is a self-correcting mechanism to get rid of the hypotheses that don't predict what occurs in nature and replace them with those that do.

I understand what you're saying.
I did not mean to leave the impression that there was an equivalence in opinion between those saying we were cooling back in the 1970s with those who say we are warming now, but I do want to raise the issue of the potential of incorrect theory and the consequences of taking steps to rectify a condition that does not exist.
 

DeletedUser23123

Warming? Don't know. I work outside for 25 years as a green keeper and landscaper. I remember mowing in December. The leaves start falling about the beginning of October. Ice storms came between February to April. In the last 5 years. We quit mowing in October. Ice Storms been hitting around November to January. Did get some in February. Like last year here. It almost like the calendar got shifted three month ahead. Early winter sort of speak. My biggest fear would be the New Madrid earthquake. A lot of plates shifting been going on lately. If that sucker goes. The whole east side is screwed. Take Katrina for example. The biggest mess I ever did see. I believe in some way the Earth is venting out. It pretty much been dormant until the 1980 St Helen erupted. Then 1989 earthquake in California. After that it been bing budda boom. Tsumami in India Ocean. The Japan Quakes. Iceland and Greenland eruptions. Haiti, Chile, Turkeys Earthquakes. Over 11 eruptions in the last 10 years. And, on top of that we had 3 major solar flares. Two close calls from asteroid and 3 meteor hit (Moscow, Nicaragua and the (moon in 2013). So complaining about Global Warming, to me seem small talk. Beside why does the Global Warming talking always happen in big cities. Where everything is concrete. I live in the boonies with a canopy of trees. Nice and cool here. Well sometime. Other time, I'm FREEZING MY BUNS Off.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Sorry, guess I should have explained the fallacy. Just because dramatic swings in temperature occurred before the industrial revolution does not mean man could not be the cause of future changes.

I think so, Well, maybe. I don't know for sure. But then no one does...

I think as much as anything it is the certitude of the hysterics that rubs me the wrong way. If you debate with them, as I do often, they find it absolutely impossible that they are wrong, this despite the fact that weather reports a mere 10 days out are notoriously inaccurate. Yet we are supposed to just accept their assertion that the planet is going to warm 3 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years unless the United States completely trashes its economy and retreats to a pre-Industrial revolution standard of living- or transfer several trillion dollars of wealth to lesser-developed nations (and the UN).

Is it >possible< that man's activities are having an effect on the climate? Absolutely. But it is equally (or, as I'd argue, even more likely) that naturally-occurring phenomena have an effect on the climate? Again, I'd say Absolutely. But, to the hysterics, that is not even a remote possibility.

Anyway, I have no qualms about what you are saying otherwise.

Unlike glarg and Konrad. Heh. Been brushing up on my high atmospheric physics (physics major in late 70's), Seems like there is still a lot of dispute about solar wind earth atmosphere interaction. NASA is trying to find out. Found a couple interesting (and contradictory) papers from the last decade that are way over my head. Some fascinating stuff on Venus as well.

Careful with that research. You might find yourself being called a "denier".

Anyway there is massive interaction between solar wind and the earth's magnetosphere, the argument seems to be over just how much penetration of earth's atmosphere.

Politically I wish a pox on both 'believers' and 'deniers'.

Going out on a limb here- hardly the first time- I suspect that many hysterics know that it is natural phenomena that have, by far, the largest impact on our climate. But they also know that, given present levels of understanding and technology, they can do precisely nothing to counter those phenomena. But what they can do is to attempt to forcibly alter the activities and behaviors of mankind- or, at least, certain members of mankind. Their goal is political, not scientific.
 

DeletedUser23123

Their goal is political, not scientific.

EXACTLY - Money Grabbers Too. Also like Mustapha00 said, they can't even figure out what happen it 10 days. How the hell do we aspect to believe what they say is going to happen 100 years from now.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
" given present levels of understanding and technology, they can do precisely nothing to counter those phenomena. "

Not really sure that we are helpless. Being the optimist I am, and a firm believer in human intelligence and the principle of serendipity, I have no doubt we can quickly find out what we need. If we were to take a small fraction of amounts proposed to combat the coming ice age, err, global, warming, I mean climate change, we could do a hekuva lot of research.

I do NOT think it is beyond this generation's reach to have the understanding and the means to stave off any noncosmic climate changes.

Investments in meteorology, climatology and atmospheric physics will bring us the needed understanding to know what we can and need to do.

Developing cheap low earth orbit access means we would vastly expand the 'playing field'. the opportunities to research, take actions, find things. As RAH said, once your in orbit you're half way to anywhere. Between raw solar power and the eath's magnetosphere there is incalculable energy to be had. How much mineral wealth was in that asteroid that just wandered by? What chemical riches in a comet that has passed perihelion? Who can guess what cool stuff, riches, knowledge is waiting for us?

Yeah, I admit, I'm a star struck space enthusiast.

Assuming we can find the will to do so. And that I am right about human intelligence. Pretty sure I am wrong in that respect regarding Washington DC. There has been little sign of intelligence there for decades. but there is hope elsewhere.
 
Last edited:

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Algona...i knew that I liked the cut of your jib for some reason.

I've been a space enthusiast since I saw the moon landings on television in 1969. I've written to many astronauts to get their autographs and to ask for their impressions and memories of their trips into space. I didn't start early enough to get the Mercury 7 when they were alive and signed pretty freely (or the following classes either- missed Armstrong during the brief period he signed).

In my never to be humble opinion, it is a damn shame that the United States has such limited launch capability, and it is unacceptable that we have to rely on the Russians for transporting our astronauts into LEO. And I hold politicians of both partys equally reponsible, so it's not an ideological thing to me. Simply put, we have not had a comprehensive and detailed mid- to long-rage plan for exploring space since the mid-1960s. Skylab was little more than a "make-do" project. the Space Shuttle, while an incredible piece of engineering, was oversold to the public; it will be many years, if ever, before a space launch will be "routine". the Shuttle was sold as a "spacefaring eighteen wheeler" that would go into space multiple times each >month<. Bad sales pitch.
I've read enough books by those who were in NASA in the 1960s (Chris Kraft, Deke Slayton, Gene Krantz, among others) to know that there were plans- concrete plans- to have a US space station in LEO by the late 1970s, a base on the moon by the mid-1980s and a man on Mars by 2000. The military had their own reusable lifting body (the Dyna-Soar), which was far less costly and complex than the Shuttle (though its carrying capacity wasn't nearly as great) so that resupply to our station would be fairly routine, and the station would have been large enough to store supplies for the moon base and have vehicles capable of making the trip from LEO to the moon on a regular basis. We had the team in place to make this happen, at least in terms of brainpower, concept and technological research, but our politicians lacked the clear vision that John Kennedy laid out a mere decade earlier.
Back on topic......I think that we are certainly capable of, if not solving the problem, at least minimizing the impact of said problem. But we need to make absolutely, positively sure that we know what the problem is before heading down that road.
Sorry about the digression, but space is one of my favorite topics. I never miss the chance to trade notes on the subject.
 

DeletedUser13838

I know we are hopelessly off topic now but I think we have to be patient with the space program. Whether it was worth the resources pumped in is hard to answer, I think the US gained a lot of experience about operating in microgravity. We are also in danger of losing the entire generation who made the moon landings possible before passing that experience on. I don't know that it would be worth it to have continued that program as it was. Hopefully with the new Orion system we will be able to have more comprehensive plans for manned missions. That said I think the robotic missions have been very successful and I'm looking forward to the 2018 launch of the JWST.
 

DeletedUser23123

(Konrad's Space program comment) The robotic was and is Awesome. Need to check on this JWST Though. These guys are able to fix and prepare something that going to a millions miles away. These weather numb nuts can't even figure out what going to happen in their own back yard. Like yesterday, the report was clear, sunny and in the 60's with a light wind. Nope, Cloudy, calm and 55 degree was the high. The Earth is very unpredictable. We could have a major heat wave one year and then a wet one the next. It was wetter this year. Our reservoir had to be drain twice. Mother Nature can fix herself. She done it long before man even roam the earth. If it get to hot she'll blow her top and make some ice.
 

DeletedUser23123

Weather and climate are not the same thing.

True. But, aren't they the same people. Forecasters get info from climate stations don't they, I think. Reason for saying. NOAA and Weather Channel are always jaw jacking about climates. Can't really get good local stuff so I somewhat have to check satellite maps on those two.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser10415

Mother Nature can fix herself. She done it long before man even roam the earth. If it get to hot she'll blow her top and make some ice.

Indeed she can. But the more likely scenario is submersion of lower elevations, expansion of desert area, increased weather extremes, and though not related to climate change, but something that's long overdue, blowing the top off of Yellowstone. The combination of these will eliminate all life that cannot rapidly adapt, and if she's lucky, that may even include humanity, in which case she can then get started on getting back to being the planet she used to be.

It is hubris to think that we can kill the planet, short of maybe drilling millions of tubes around the world, through all the crust layers, and packing them with hydrogen bombs. Not as far fetched though to think we could make the planet less than habitable for ourselves and the rest of life here though.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
Glarg is absolutely right in his list of things that comprise a "more likely scenario".
But what confounds climate change hysterics- unless they pretend that it didn't happen, which many do- is that all of those things have happened before, indeed many times before, throughout the history of our planet- and all of them, every single one of them, either absent human technological development or, in the vast majority of occasions, absent human existence.
 

DawnLight the Just

Active Member
If you look up the statistics, it will show you that humans are responsible for only 1-2% of the changes in the atmosphere that are responsible for climate change. Most of the atmospheric changes that are responsible for the warming that we have seen (about 1 degree since they started recording temperatures in the atmosphere on a routine basis) are from natural phenomenon like earthquakes and volcano eruptions. Humans have done very little to alter it. Though, as noted in a previous post, most of the problems have arisen not from using fossil fuels, but from deforestation.
 

Algona

Well-Known Member
If you look up the statistics, it will show you that humans are responsible for only 1-2% of the changes in the atmosphere that are responsible for climate change. Most of the atmospheric changes that are responsible for the warming that we have seen (about 1 degree since they started recording temperatures in the atmosphere on a routine basis) are from natural phenomenon like earthquakes and volcano eruptions. Humans have done very little to alter it. Though, as noted in a previous post, most of the problems have arisen not from using fossil fuels, but from deforestation.

Could you please link to the actual data sources supporting your statements?
 

DeletedUser

There is small evidence that the average global temperature is up about 2.7 degrees C
The real evidence is the loss of permafrost. glaciers, rising sea levels, more desert land, new diseases, large beds of algae in the waters.
Did you know that in a recent study there is appx. 65% of the worlds oxygen produced is now from the algae?
Used to be that forests and farming accounted for almost 90%
Does this tell you what the main reason for global warming is?
It is not pollutants but our devastation of our main basic economy.
Plants and trees.
The U.N. has a proposed plan to plant 5 billion trees world wide by the year 2024, but the plan is flawed.
I have an amendment that I am drafting, showing that if these trees are not cared for(as the big 40million trees in Australia), more than 60% will be lost to drought and fires (as happened in Australia)
Wish me luck.
P.S. Just one tree removes all the pollution in 1 year, 1 single person can create in an entire lifetime.
It also adds ozone back to replenish our breathing for every single man, and animal specie.
So 5 billion would be a great start, just needs the care, which creates jobs and revenues, otherwise its pointless.

There is so much wrong with this post I don't know where to begin.
The question is not whether or not there is warming...there is. There is also cooling. One ice cap has shrunk, the other has grown more than the other has shrunk. The question is, should we care? or more appropriately, is there anything we can do about it? No. If you can explain how my SUV is responsible for the global warming trend lines on Mars Venus, Uranus and Saturn, that are coinciding with those same trends on Earth, I will give up my keys and walk from here on. No one stops to think about that huge thermonuclear oven that is continuously changing in intensity (within margin) at the center of our solar system.
Next, terrestrial plant life has never been responsible for more O2 production than algae...ever. Our means and methods of data collection have improved, better recognizing the contribution of algae, but it is mathematically impossible for plants on land to compete...it is a numbers game.
There are more trees in North America right now than when the pilgrims landed. There used to be no controls when a fire started in nature. It would burn until it ran out of fuel...adding pollutants to the atmosphere as well, BTW.
Climate change is occurring. It has always occurred and it will continue to occur. If anyone wants the truth on this YouTube Lord Christopher Monckton, former Science Advisor to Margaret Thatcher. He has it nailed. The Climate change Cult were screaming ice age in the 70s, global warming in the 90s, and since neither has come to pass in the catastrophic manner predicted, they have pivoted to "Climate Change"...that way no matter what happens they can claim prescience. It is actually pretty sad. So many really smart people get sucked into this cult. Just the smallest amount of research on methodology exposes the lie.

BTW...CO2 is not a pollutant! It is PLANT FOOD! The hubris of man will lead to his downfall.
 

DeletedUser13452

Climate trends indicate a definite rise in temperatures world wide. The problem is we have no model to establish the cause. Nobody can say we (mankind) are responsible for it. In my humble opinion, it shouldn't matter. We still should not be destroying our environment in the name of progress. We think of resources as virtually endless and they are not by any means. We will run out. Many resources will be exhausted within centuries rather than millenia. I think most average people aren't coming to truly appreciate this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top