Climate Change: are we screwed?

[WarrenHill]

@VulcanRidr

Geophysicists estimate that just three volcanic eruptions — Indonesia (1883), Alaska (1912) and Iceland (1947) — spewed more carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than all of mankind’s activities during our entire history.

Can you provide a reputable source for this? By which I mean a link to an original scientific paper or serious science website such as Nature for example.

@VulcanRidr

it is arrogant to think that humans can have that kind of effect on the planet, especially when weather catastrophes like the Galveston hurricane in 1900 (4th deadliest Atlantic hurricane), which happened before cars were a common thing,

There is a clear link showing that CO₂ levels population growth and fossil fuel burning all occurred at the same time and that during this time global temperatures have increased.

This image was lifted from Wikepedia, not always the most accurate source but I have seen graphs showing the correlation between CO₂, population, temperature and fossil fuel usage in journals such as Nature: Climate Change in the past.

This could be a coincidence but seems unlikely. It is true to say that correlation and causation are separate things however but I believe that this does raise important questions.

I will reply in more detail once I have had time to locate relevant sources

@VulcanRidr

Of course, this is my humble opinion, but I believe that there is more than enough evidence to consider not taking the global warming folks at face value.

There may not be a link but on the one hand if we are causing the climate to change and we take appropriate action we limit the effects. If non of this is from human causes what have we lost by taking action?

[neuro]

@Sarah_Scarlett

seeing as this is what I’m wearing right now as I type in your countrys most southern state…it may be too late even to do that properly

Weather != climate.

[Sarah_Scarlett]

@neuro

Weather != climate.

Well, actually with this particular system (same one responsible for the tornado Sunday in Alabama) the question has become a current narrative. If you’ll notice, this PBS article linked offers no definitive statement (mind you I’m inclined to see Bernie Sanders statements as too brash) much less a boolean one.

[neuro]

I’ll say it again, just with more words: weather is not the same thing as climate.

[Sarah_Scarlett]

@neuro

I’ll say it again, just with more words: weather is not the same thing as climate

Climate scientists at NOAA gave their take in almost as little words:

Weather and climate describe the same thing—the state of the atmosphere—but at different time scales.

But that’s not really my point. I’ve been around long enough to know things are messed up, that’s my personal observations and truth. Again, personal truth. Having already arrived at that, my mindset is now focused on how I’m going to endure what I see as the last days of abundance. I’m going to try my best to enjoy myself while I still can and would encourage others to do so as well (that’s my point). To that end, I’m waiting on a package of aquarium supplies because I’ve been obsessing over something this thread and WarrenHill inspired a couple weeks ago. I do realise I have an obligation to generations after me and WarrenHill did have a very good point about inventorying what one could do needing to be an ongoing process (least, that was my take away)

[neuro]

[philgq]

Personally, I do think that climate change is caused at least in part by humans.

The main point of difficulty I have with the evidence is that it can’t properly account for galactic factors. Human observation is limited to at most few hundred years, when the earth has been going around the sun and sun around the centre of the Milky Way for much longer than that. A variation of a few degrees in billions of years doesn’t seem that significant. People used to believe that if they prayed during an eclipse that the sun would return, well they were right, it did come back every time!

However, what I do think is obvious is that if you dump poison in the water supply and pump poison into the atmospheres and put not biodegradable substances in the ground, then air and water will become poisonous and the ground saturated which will threaten human health.

In some ways the argument seems a little too macro and not enough micro. Arguments against the marco are used to justify not sorting out the micro. While genuine micro concerns are not used to justify changing macro policy.

[Sarah_Scarlett]

@WarrenHill, remember when I said I was going to do something just for you? Ok well a couple weeks actually worked out to be a couple months, but I’ve done it and it can be found here
Carbon Capture Cocktail

//edit: edited link

[Snork]

@johannesburgel

Why are we so angry? Where can I start?

• if CO2 is harmless (just consider the possibility)
• then all (OK most of) the money that is invested in CO2 reduction is wasted

Contrary to what you imply, climate change funding is not useful for most purposes. Imagine what ‘real’ nature protection could do with even 10% of the huge sums that go into the CO2 reduction industry.

This is only the first step. Because it starts you thinking … there is no sign of nature being the victim, there really isn’t if you study the matter, there are only a few speculations clearly driven by the need for funding. I know a bunch of people that regularly go on expeditions to tropical forests, and climate change is simply not on their agenda. Destruction by farmers and loggers is. But nobody’s interested nowadays. Oh! Climate Change!

Indeed as @oldgeek points out, there is oppression. People do get banned and blacklisted from universities because … well … for one thing, the CO2 reductionists are convinced they are ‘on the right side’. But they are not. Nature is the ‘right’ side, and nature thinks more CO2 is OK.

Apart from that, sea levels are not rising increasingly, extreme weather is not happening (it’s actually decreasing - even IPCC has to admit what they call ‘absence of a signal’), atolls are not disappearing, ice cover is increasing. All temperature models fail spectacularly (or should I say ‘hilariously’?). There is massive fraud going on, directly exposed in the Climate Gate scandal, but it’s gone on everywhere. For example the ‘homogenisation’ of data that has occurred the past years, the effect always being an extra, increased trend (not very random, right?).

Summary: Like @oldgeek smells, it stinks. But hey, even if it were happening, and even if we would in some way be successful in stopping the problem, well, there would be no more nature to fight for in the very near future.

Yeah, how effective are these trillions pumped into the CO2 reduction industry in controlling climate? By their own measure - negligible. How is it possible anyone is defending that?

And the winners are: The owners of Big Oil, the energy conglomerates and banks.

They have made sure that expensive, scarce energy is the limiting factor of everything. They secured a crippled opposition for 10s of years, that are now forced to make energy in ridiculously inefficient ways, rather than going for alternatives that would actually threaten their very existence. Think about it: if you are Big Oil, what is your worst nightmare? A few windmills in some highly developed countries? Or unlimited clean, cheap energy from modern intrinsically safe Thorium-based reactors?

Neat trick: do as if you are being threatened by something you know is harmless, and your natural enemies will volunteer to be your allies.

So the ‘good’ people are being used to fight for a bad cause. Now that is what makes us angry.

[oldgeek]

Hello @Snork. Welcome to the club. And what a subject to jump in on!

In my observations, one’s view and belief in the climate issue has little to do with science (despite what one wants to think of as the basis of his belief) and more to to do with the propaganda one is inclined to believe. This is certainly born out in this thread.

[Sarah_Scarlett]

Hi and welcome @Snork! I’m here for fun and hope you have some too If you were to post about abiotic oil too I’d be sure to read it, valuing your opinions, and most likely enjoy doing so because we don’t have to be an echo chamber to have fun and I especially enjoy reading views that are not my own

[Bert]

Hi and thx for the welcome @Sarah_Scarlett !

I see @oldgeek’s point, but really, it’s not about religion here. It’s about exploitation for wealth and power. I guess the most powerful voice here is from Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, who saw his movement hijacked … he tells us the story. We can bring on all the hard facts we want, this is more powerful … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE .

[oldgeek]

@Bert

it’s not about religion here. It’s about exploitation for wealth and power.

I don’t know if truer words have been said here! However, being that data can be manipulated to make any point that one wants to make (and it is disgusting to see how it has been manipulated), the climate issue has turned into a form of religion. I’m being agnostic as to whether it is climate alarmists or climate deniers. “Don’t challenge our beliefs” is the mentality here.

So, propaganda is needed to cover up the core reasons. As you said, exploitation for wealth and power.

Edit: Speaking of exploitation. Here is the latest in the child abuse going on to use children for political reasons. Even if it is a joke, it is disgusting. 18to8

[Bert]

https://18to8.ca/#top is scary. In the Netherlands, we have similar madness. Really scary. I can think of several ‘youth movements’ from the past and they were all driven by what the adults deemed ‘good’, which we now know was really scary. These kids have no way of knowing precisely what they are for (or against), yet they are being shamelessly exploited by people who are, even if the CO2-hunters would be right, totally immoral.

[Sarah_Scarlett]

@Bert

We can bring on all the hard facts we want, this is more powerful …

I’m just gonna point out, as someone born in 1975, that’s a pretty hipster thing to say I like to evaluate facts on my own but that might just be because I’m old as f*ck. However, I agree with you 100% that exploiting elementary school aged children is despicable even if your message is right. It really is sickening and disappointing to see that

[oldgeek]

@Bert

I guess the most powerful voice here is from Patrick Moore

Being that I am an equal opportunity skeptic…

I confess of knowing little of Dr. Moore. I will also confess that, since he is a proponent of GMOs and says that glyphosate is perfectly safe, I would be inclined to dismiss him. But that is because of my personal views of those products. However, I realize, though he promotes things that I think are dangerous, that does not mean what he says in the video linked there is wrong. No more than because Al Gore is dishonest and disingenuous mean that what he says is wrong. (although it is fun watching for his tell (as in a poker tell). He will often do something right before he says something that he knows is fabricated, wrong or just a plain lie )

I found a link to the paper he wrote in which that video is based on. http://ecosense.me/ecosense-wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CO2-Emissions.pdf

[Bert]

@oldgeek No more equal opportunity from my side, because the facts are too overwhelming. Millions and millions have been pumped into climate science and all they came up was failing models and blatant fraud to uphold their doom scenarios. I consider the absence of any real evidence (no warming, no sea-level rise, less extreme weather, etc.) in the vicinity of so many available opportunities to find at least something that is actually happening - I find that a proof of the opposite.

Having said that, it does not matter. Even if you believe in CO2 driven climate change, you have to see that the trillions spent on it are wasted. By their own models, the measures will have no measurable impact! The Paris treatment is indefensible, period. It’s time for activists for nature to realize what’s going on and re-focus on actual nature preservation rather than this bizarre sponsoring of inefficient energy generation.

[oldgeek]

Are you actually suggesting no more climate committees and summits? Do you realize that then, another crisis would have to be created in order to form a different drinking club, er, I mean, committee?

@Bert

Even if you believe in CO2 driven climate change, you have to see that the trillions spent on it are wasted.

I’m sure that there are those, like Al Gore, who are living in a big “carbon footprint” house, riding in big “carbon footprint” autos and private planes, all the while in their huge hypocrisy lecturing that everyone lower their “carbon footprint” will disagree that the trillions spent are wasted. Especially when some of those trillions winds up in their pocket. Yep, the “climate crisis” makes for a great life!

[oldgeek]

Hey Sarah, 1975. Jaws was on the big screen. The Captain and Tennille was on the radio. I remember it just as if it was only 44 years ago.

[Bert]

@oldgeek I see all those points you make but again - not really relevant, a bit resentful and frankly, I don’t care whether they live in luxury. This is not about hypocrisy. Even if Al Gore and all these other ‘members of the club’ would be able to get their ‘carbon footprint’ right, then still the measures taken are so unbelievably ineffective that they are harmful in many many ways.

I remain that people who are in it to ‘save the planet’ should realise they are on the wrong side, the side they do not want to be on. The position ‘Climate Change is a priority’ is indefensible for people who love nature and the planet. Realise that your actions are against nature and against saving the planet. I know that the people behind this (who want money and power) want you to believe this, but it is wrong. The climate change position is an absolute disaster for nature.