CLimate Change, have the scientists got it wrong again?

13 years 8 months ago - 13 years 8 months ago #2835 by Zeta
Must admit I thought the scientists depended on their stats and computer models too much to start with, maybe after reading this they might admit they got it wrong, do you think?

Climate Change myth explained?


,
13 years 8 months ago #2851 by mustangman67
I have always thought that they were completely wrong on this subject.


,
13 years 8 months ago #2858 by cajunband
Very interesting article. It definitely offers a concept not previously thought about.


,
13 years 8 months ago #2861 by Stan
Great article it really gives you something to think about.


,
13 years 8 months ago #2884 by flintsones
This article is really going to draw a lot of attention.


,
13 years 7 months ago #3604 by stevesevilempire
Actually it is an example of good science here.

The realities of global warming being exacerbated by human activity is a greater likelihood in light of these results from the solar satellites monitoring the suns output. The realities of global warming and the impact that carbon emissions have seem to be more confirmed by these results than blaming it on the sun in the first place.
If you feel like an internet trawl for some of the info, check out the Mullard space science laboratory site or even solars.
Steve ;-)


,
13 years 7 months ago #3961 by wms
There is also the website global warming hox

However I always ask people who are expounding on global warming to explainthe 'Little Ice age" from 1250 to 1850. I also point out that during the Roman occupation of England there is a report of the high quality of the wine harvest in parts of England where it is too cold to grow grapes at the present time. Both of these reports were before industrialization.

A second inconvenient little fact is the existence of geologic evidence of Ice ages. Why is it now warmer than then?

As the Head of the Chemistry department where I spent far too much time taking classes once said "Many a beautiful theory has died a cruel and terrible death at the hands of one little inconvenient fact".

Wayne


,
13 years 7 months ago #3967 by Nod
I think global warming has been going on for eons. Remember that most of North America was covered in ice long ago and melted back to pretty much where it is now (give or take some miles) and that was long before mankind even existed. Warming and freezing trends are just part of nature and will repeat over and over forever. The only reason that you're hearing from these alarmist is because there is $$$$ to be made from the panic.


,
13 years 7 months ago #4592 by Janet
they never have it right! lol


,
13 years 7 months ago - 13 years 7 months ago #4606 by cbartlett800
Weather or not you believe in global warming (and it does exist, the question is really how much do humans effect it), you should check out this guys logic.

The sun cycle has been known for a long time and it is nothing new. If you really want to follow the history of that you should start with some books on the Mayan's as they knew of these cycles in 700 AD and possibly even earlier. The argument that there may be money to be made on the "panic" of global warming is total crap (sorry for the language) because who are the ones that are fighting all the potential legislation that would help fight global warming? It is the same people/corporations that are making billions on pumping out the green house gases.

The larger problem comes with the oceans. We have no idea what a few degrees more increase in temperature will do to the ecosystem. And if the oceans go, then a whole lot of living things on land will go as well since 70% of our O2 supply will no longer be there...

So in my mind the only thing that we have to loose if we act on it is a shit ton of money, I would rather loose a lot of money then my life.


,
13 years 7 months ago #4754 by Yasko
Interesting video, but I can poke a hole in his theoretical chart logic. If man-made impact on global warming turns out to real, and we do spend those tons of $ on draconian measures and policies to reduce carbon emissions, the same costs have been incurred, and there will still be a Global depression. There will be no way of truly knowing over time if regulations and costs incurred made an impact. There will be no smiley face on the lower left box, just a stable climate, but an economy that's been thrown into ruin, the same way it has in the top left box.

Oversimplified charts aside, I think humanity's carbon emission on climate is negligible. Sure, global warming is real, so is global cooling. It's naturally occurred in cycles within cycles over the eons, and the proof is to be seen throughout recorded history as well as the strata of the earth, all of which occurred without the help of the industrial revolution. The earth has been both cooler, AND warmer than it is now in recent geological history. Alarmists like Gore have made this into a racket, and are preaching falsehoods as certainties, such as the notion all scientists are in consensus with this issue. Call me a pessimist, but the reality is that even if cap and trade(tax), harsh regulations, and bucketfuls of money are thrown at the theory of manmade global warming, competitive emerging economies in Asia and elsewhere that rely on abundant cheap coal will refuse such self-destructive measures, and worldwide emissions will increase regardless.

Sustainable clean energy is important, but penalizing industry with "carbon footprints", "cap and trade" and other such nonsense is just economic suicide. I think we should simply go as we are now. Research into cleaner, more efficient energy sources is the best policy; eventually we'll perfect alternative energy into something efficient enough to be feasible. We just have to drop the stuff that we know will never make sense...like ethenol...don't get me started on that.... :huh:


The following user(s) said Thank You: Screamin Scott
,
13 years 7 months ago - 13 years 7 months ago #4762 by cbartlett800
I really suggest you all to read "hot flat and crowded" By Thomas L. Friedman. One of the points of this book is why we should start producing green energy. Yes there are countries like China and India that will just pollute in our stead, if we ever go green. But his point was that we will come to point where we want cleaner air to breath in our cities, and that can not come as long as we are burning fossil fuels, and if countries like China do not jump on this green band wagon then they will eventually be buying the tech and the manufactured goods from us, or another country that has all the green tech. So, in that case it becomes more of an economic issue.

And really, global depression because of a green movement??? All those "harsh and draconian" laws that would put a tax on carbon or similar emissions, would only make new sectors like wind turbines and solar energy more profitable. Yes, they may cause a gap in the economy by making oil less profitable, but that gap will get filled immediately by green tech, and if you do not think so, look into who is funding a lot of the green tech, it is oil companies. They are not stupid and they know that they can not make money on oil for ever, so what do they do? They diversify into other sectors of energy production...

And if you look at world trend over the last few millennia, then you will see that CO2 is at an all time high. It is not just from our burning of fossil fuels that did this, it is also due to the fact that we have clear cut and devastated the worlds natural air filters, our forests. And ohhh yeah, that big CO2 scrubber we call an ocean, now has dead zones popping up all over the place. This is mainly due to human interaction. There are many reasons why CO2 is higher now then it has ever been, but most of those reasons have to do with human interaction in the environment.

And that little smiley face at the bottom left corner of his chart, he may mean something different, but I see it as this planet not turning into a dry rock with little atmosphere like Mars. I would rather have no economy and a planet that is livable then have an economy with a planet that is not.


,
13 years 7 months ago #4776 by Joves
Well lets see, when I was a youngster it was Global Cooling from all of the holes being poked in the Ozone Layer by spray can propellant. They said we would be in another Ice Age in 50 to 100 years. Well gee that one didnt work out but, we did get all sorts of new regulations and people in government to control it and, all sorts of academics got all sorts of grants to research it. Fast forward to recently. Now it was global warming because we had year with warmer that normal or percieved normal tempratures. Again the regulators stepped in got more money to ban more things and, tell the people what to do, also the people who supported the new latest and greatest global panic got all sorts of money to prove it correct. Funny how those who are neutral in the effects of human causes are ostrisized and, not only than demonized for using thing called facts. One scientist even proved that more CO2 was good for the planet as it increased plant growth by giving them more CO2 to grow stronger and faster. Gee that somehow missed the GW Journals.
So now lets look at the present the name has changed to Climate Change, well quite frankly because we have had a few cooler years which the climate models didnt count on. SO now Climate Change covers everything but, the problem with that is the climate changes four times a year, which is why we have what they call seasons. If you look deep into the rabbit hole you will see that the majority of the CC proponents are heavily invested in companies that are poised to make pornographic amounts of money from the increases in regulation. Governemtn is all for it because they wish to tax you for basically for being born based upon your Carbon Footprint, things like Cap&Trade or Actually Cap&Tax are only the beginning. Dont be fooled this is purely a money grab by those who wield the power and, hold all of the card at the table of life.
Also isnt it funny that those who are the largest proponents also are the greatest polluters, jetting all over the world in their private aircraft, being driven around in gas hog limos and, having opulent homes which comsume more electricity than your average neighbothoodm with no alternative energy scources to power them. If you choose to follow these greedy hypocrites lead good for you but, dont penalize me because you choose to believe a lie.
Now to get hings straight Am I for renewable energy sources? Yes but not because of a myth but, because of looking in realistic terms. And that is what we are dealing with currently to make power and move freely are resouces which are finite. Once we are out of them it is game over. Im for developing technologies which actually free people from the current system, which will eventually fail due to running out of the materials. Right now what is being promoted will work to some extent they are still keeping the technology some what dependent upon the old energy paradigm. Guess who is doing that little trick? It is the same people who are in charge of the same energy sources currently. There are things out there that will work independently of any external source. Cars can be built that will recharge themselves and, homes and buildings as well. But as has been the case for many years those who make those ideas are bought out and, mysteriously that technology never makes it out.


,
13 years 7 months ago #4798 by cbartlett800
Is this normal fluctuation in CO2 levels?



Yes this only covers 800000 years or so but hey who is counting? Also, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that higher CO2 levels are better for plants. The question is, is it better for the rest of us. The average global temperature has increased about 1 degrees C over the last half century alone. If it goes much higher we risk loosing polar ice caps and the glaciers in Greenland. If this happens then we will have millions of refugees that will be displaced by rising sea levels. Yes, this may be a normal cycle of the earth, but will it be preferable if we can halt it or change it to prevent something like that from happening? We already know it will come, the question is when, and how bad will it be when we get here. The truth is, we have very little idea, but do we want to risk doing nothing and potentially be worse of because of it?


Attachments:
,
13 years 7 months ago #4863 by effron
We have allowed faulty and selective science destroy the manufacturing base in America. The climate has been fluctuating for billions of years, and will continue to do so in the future regardless of the inane regulations that have moved our industry to the orient, or the trillions spent on the feel good crowd.
A proper solution can never be applied so long as the problem is misdiagnosed.
When Mt Pinatubo erupted a few years back, more contaminants were spewed into the atmosphere in ten seconds than have been "contributed" by humans in our entire history.
We will fix our end in time because its the right thing to do, and someone will make lots of money for the effort. Nature, on the other hand will continue to do what she will.....

Why so serious?
Photo Comments
The following user(s) said Thank You: Joves
,

817.3K

241K

  • Facebook

    817,251 / Likes

  • Twitter

    241,000 / Followers

  • Google+

    1,620,816 / Followers

Latest Reviews

The Sony a9 III is a powerhouse professional-grade camera. The question is, should it be the next item in your camera bag? Find out if it’s worth the money in this comprehensive review!

Jun 09, 2024

The Hasselblad 907X 50C certainly isn’t the camera for everyone. However, this medium-format system is ideal for many professional photographers (and videographers!)

Jun 04, 2024

The Olympus Pen E-P7 is an affordable micro four thirds mirrorless camera with 4K video capabilities, a 20.3MP sensor, and 121 focus points, making it a solid entry-level camera for beginners.

May 13, 2024

The Panasonic G9 II is a 25.2-megapixel micro four thirds camera with numerous features that make it punch out of its weight class, like 779 AF points, 5.8K video, and weather sealing.

May 10, 2024

Forum Top Posters

Latest Articles

The Sony a9 III is a powerhouse professional-grade camera. The question is, should it be the next item in your camera bag? Find out if it’s worth the money in this comprehensive review!

Jun 09, 2024

Wedding photography trends come and go, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t exciting at the moment! This year’s top trends include old and new technologies and techniques to create lasting memories.

Jun 09, 2024

The Sony ZV-1 Mark II is a nice update to the ZV-1 and expands Sony’s lineup of cameras for vlogging and content creation. Is it the right camera for you, though? Let’s find out!

Jun 09, 2024

Having a solid client management system allows you to build a more sustainable business with a larger number of repeat clients. But how do you do that? Let’s find out!

Jun 05, 2024

Canyon photography is an interesting niche of landscape photography that has some distinct challenges like harsh light and shadows. But with the right preparation, you can capture epic shots!

Jun 04, 2024

The Hasselblad 907X 50C certainly isn’t the camera for everyone. However, this medium-format system is ideal for many professional photographers (and videographers!)

Jun 04, 2024

The process is actually quite straightforward if you want to print from iPhone. But, if you need a little guidance, this guide is what you need! Dive in and learn how to print smartphone photos!

Jun 04, 2024

The Fuji X-T5 is a mid-range camera ideal for beginners who need a high-powered camera body to professionals looking for a solid second camera - and many uses in between!

Jun 03, 2024