T
Tsuwano
Guest
What are you insinuating?
- Status
G
gmx2014
Guest
Today, 10:24 pm
Remove user from ignore list
Monkey1976
This message is hidden because Monkey1976 is on your ignore list.
Remove user from ignore list
Monkey1976
This message is hidden because Monkey1976 is on your ignore list.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTE
Please get back to the topic of the original post
Please get back to the topic of the original post
G
gmx2014
Guest
Wow. From the article shared at the beginning of this thread, I found this video in the comments section:
CBN News
Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming?
youtu.be/Av_DAeTP6r4
" …more than a billion people do not have access to electricity. And almost as many struggle with unreliable power. Cheap electricity from coal would be a savior for the world’s poor, but the world’s wealthy nations don’t want them to have it. All in the name of saving the planet from a crisis that mounting evidence suggests is non existent."
I don’t think “cheap electricity from coal would be a savior” to anyone. They’d go from no electricity to air pollution, but then they’d also have that electromagnetic toxicity thing to think about. I think no electricity is actually healthier. Humanity did okay from ancient times until the past two hundred years, lol. We didn’t die out because there was no electricity. In fact, Humanity’s population grew significantly in the past two hundred years, and probably because of electricity! The world sure has changed because of electricity (all the uses of it), and of course, medical technology couldn’t be what it is today without electricity. But I think the very thing that has changed so much also has unacknowledged consequence.
I don’t agree that there is “mounting evidence” that climate crisis is non existent. There’s sky-high mountain of evidence of pollution, and I don’t think anyone could say that pollution has no effect on climate.
I don’t think anything I’ve read on this page is blatantly false, serving solely to profit:
Using the Clean Air Act to Sharply Reduce Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants
nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/default.asp
Electricity generates heat. I think electricity itself, and the uses of it, is a pollutant (not just the production of it). I think our electrified, motorized world is causing environmental harm. The Earth is not man made. The WORLD is man made.
CBN News
Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming?
youtu.be/Av_DAeTP6r4
" …more than a billion people do not have access to electricity. And almost as many struggle with unreliable power. Cheap electricity from coal would be a savior for the world’s poor, but the world’s wealthy nations don’t want them to have it. All in the name of saving the planet from a crisis that mounting evidence suggests is non existent."
I don’t think “cheap electricity from coal would be a savior” to anyone. They’d go from no electricity to air pollution, but then they’d also have that electromagnetic toxicity thing to think about. I think no electricity is actually healthier. Humanity did okay from ancient times until the past two hundred years, lol. We didn’t die out because there was no electricity. In fact, Humanity’s population grew significantly in the past two hundred years, and probably because of electricity! The world sure has changed because of electricity (all the uses of it), and of course, medical technology couldn’t be what it is today without electricity. But I think the very thing that has changed so much also has unacknowledged consequence.
I don’t agree that there is “mounting evidence” that climate crisis is non existent. There’s sky-high mountain of evidence of pollution, and I don’t think anyone could say that pollution has no effect on climate.
I don’t think anything I’ve read on this page is blatantly false, serving solely to profit:
Using the Clean Air Act to Sharply Reduce Carbon Pollution from Existing Power Plants
nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/default.asp
Electricity generates heat. I think electricity itself, and the uses of it, is a pollutant (not just the production of it). I think our electrified, motorized world is causing environmental harm. The Earth is not man made. The WORLD is man made.
E
Erich
Guest
The Earth isn’t warmer now than before.
A couple of years ago I read an article about some glacier in Peru whose retreat was being blamed on man-made global warming; the “proof” was that more and more ancient plant beds were being newly uncovered each year as the ice retreated (this started in 2002). Carbon dating indicated that most of these plant beds have been buried for at least 5,000 years.
Think about that for a minute. What that really says is, the earth today is still not as warm as it was 5,000 or more years ago (i.e. the ancient plant beds are only just being uncovered, the plants themselves are not regrowing). Was mankind also responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago? I highly doubt it; mankind was no more responsible for the warm temperatures 5,000+ years ago than for the subsequent cooler temperatures.
E
Ender
Guest
OK, this is an argument I didn’t really want to engage. The Earth is warmer now than it was in the mid 1800s and warming had been going on for over a century. Whether the Earth had been warmer in previous centuries I don’t contest. The situation is fairly simple: the Earth has been warming recently, and the question is: what caused it? Yes, the Earth regularly goes through warming and cooling cycles and the recent warming could be nothing more than another normal cycle (which is in fact what I believe), but the argument has been made that this warming is different, is man made, and was caused by CO2 emissions. In refuting that claim it is not sufficient to state that warming cycles have been naturally induced in the past; it needs to be refuted based on the same scientific data that have been used to assert the claim.
The very specific topic here is whether or not warming stopped around 1998 or whether it continues today. The answer, based on the analysis of agencies supporting the claim that man and his CO2 are responsible, is that warming has stopped. I didn’t want to address other issues because I didn’t want the discussion to get sidetracked away from this point.
Ender
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
So called global warming is one huge fraud that has duped multitudes of earthbound people who are, alas, more zealous regarding the survival of the planet than they are their own immortal souls. It is a trendy topic that unites secularists and gives them a cause to rally around and pontificate about.
Those who do not subscribe to this unproven theory are likened to the flat-earther’s who are in denial respecting the truth. However, it must be said that much of the research behind the theory is specious, anti historical and scientifically illiterate. If the world is warming up, dear friends, then it is owing to perfectly natural reasons rather than the alleged irresponsible actions of mankind.
It is not true that the seas are generally rising - some are; some are not. The claim is based on the atypical North Atlantic and conveniently ignores the seas around Australia, where levels have remained fairly static. Indeed, around parts of New Zealand and elsewhere they are in fact falling. The ice-caps also tell a similar story - some are certainly melting but some are not. The Larsen ice shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up but most of the Antarctic ice is increasing.
No doubt some will contend that the climate now is the hottest on record and will say that this must be accounted for. The problem is, dear friends, that the statistical record only takes us back a few centuries, if that. However, there is plenty of other evidence that the climate in Europe was warmer than now by at least two degrees in 1100, when vines grew in Northhumberland in Britain and farmers settled in Greenland. Now since this was followed by the little Ice Age, which endured until about 1880, it is hardly surprising - and surely an occasion of rejoicing - that since that time the climate has warmed up by about 0.6 degrees, well within normal patterns.
As for that presumed villain of the piece carbon dioxide, this, dear friends, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make very little difference to our climate. Historically, it has increased hundreds of years after the climate has warmed up. Between 1940 and1975, when industrial activity, which produces carbon dioxide, rapidly rose, the climate actually cooled.
Far from being a proven fact, dear friends, the claim of man-made global warming is one big global fraud, given credibility by the boiler-plate rants of trendy eco-warriors. There is much talk of the vast majority of the world’s scientists now accepting man-made global warming. However, this does not amount to irrefragable proof, merely that a large number of people can buy into a fashionable ideological belief to appear intellectually respectable. In any case, those scientists who endorse the theory command the lion’s share of government-funded research grants. Since the global warming prediction emerged in the late 1980’s, climate science funding has gone through the roof. Look, scientist know fully well that they will not get funded unless their research confirms global warming. Too many enormous reputations would go down the proverbial plug hole otherwise - too many political agendas depend on upholding this theory. Thus global warming has become jolly big business.
This is ironic, dear friends, for it is yet another variation of extreme left-wing. anti-American, anti-West ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialized world must be wicked.
Finally, dear friends, the oft repeated claim of man-made global warming represents the decent of science from the pursuit of truth into politicised propaganda. That a huge number of scientists endorse this bizarre theory only serves to evince just how deep the rot is. The Catholic faithful ought to think very carefully before throwing their lot in with man-made global warming theory zealots.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
So called global warming is one huge fraud that has duped multitudes of earthbound people who are, alas, more zealous regarding the survival of the planet than they are their own immortal souls. It is a trendy topic that unites secularists and gives them a cause to rally around and pontificate about.
Those who do not subscribe to this unproven theory are likened to the flat-earther’s who are in denial respecting the truth. However, it must be said that much of the research behind the theory is specious, anti historical and scientifically illiterate. If the world is warming up, dear friends, then it is owing to perfectly natural reasons rather than the alleged irresponsible actions of mankind.
It is not true that the seas are generally rising - some are; some are not. The claim is based on the atypical North Atlantic and conveniently ignores the seas around Australia, where levels have remained fairly static. Indeed, around parts of New Zealand and elsewhere they are in fact falling. The ice-caps also tell a similar story - some are certainly melting but some are not. The Larsen ice shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up but most of the Antarctic ice is increasing.
No doubt some will contend that the climate now is the hottest on record and will say that this must be accounted for. The problem is, dear friends, that the statistical record only takes us back a few centuries, if that. However, there is plenty of other evidence that the climate in Europe was warmer than now by at least two degrees in 1100, when vines grew in Northhumberland in Britain and farmers settled in Greenland. Now since this was followed by the little Ice Age, which endured until about 1880, it is hardly surprising - and surely an occasion of rejoicing - that since that time the climate has warmed up by about 0.6 degrees, well within normal patterns.
As for that presumed villain of the piece carbon dioxide, this, dear friends, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make very little difference to our climate. Historically, it has increased hundreds of years after the climate has warmed up. Between 1940 and1975, when industrial activity, which produces carbon dioxide, rapidly rose, the climate actually cooled.
Far from being a proven fact, dear friends, the claim of man-made global warming is one big global fraud, given credibility by the boiler-plate rants of trendy eco-warriors. There is much talk of the vast majority of the world’s scientists now accepting man-made global warming. However, this does not amount to irrefragable proof, merely that a large number of people can buy into a fashionable ideological belief to appear intellectually respectable. In any case, those scientists who endorse the theory command the lion’s share of government-funded research grants. Since the global warming prediction emerged in the late 1980’s, climate science funding has gone through the roof. Look, scientist know fully well that they will not get funded unless their research confirms global warming. Too many enormous reputations would go down the proverbial plug hole otherwise - too many political agendas depend on upholding this theory. Thus global warming has become jolly big business.
This is ironic, dear friends, for it is yet another variation of extreme left-wing. anti-American, anti-West ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialized world must be wicked.
Finally, dear friends, the oft repeated claim of man-made global warming represents the decent of science from the pursuit of truth into politicised propaganda. That a huge number of scientists endorse this bizarre theory only serves to evince just how deep the rot is. The Catholic faithful ought to think very carefully before throwing their lot in with man-made global warming theory zealots.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
F
frobert
Guest
It’s not global warming, its climate change that is playing havoc with weather. Not every tragic weather event is the direct result but the frequency of extremes including drought, flooding, typhoons, colder winters, hotter summers, etc are the components of climate change.
Granted, climate change is a theory and there are opposing theories. Have you heard of Ockham’s razor? It’s the principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. There are problems with this principle but the climate change theory does succinctly explain the frequency of extreme weather events. I don’t know if there are any opposing theories that do as well, if there are any that you know of it would beneficial to learn about them.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It’s simpler still to believe the cause of weather changes is that combination of things that always causes weather changes, particularly the various cycles the planet goes through.
Personally, I am greatly concerned that we might be heading into a cycle that repeated in the beginning of the 20th century, then again in the 1930s and in the 1950s, much more mildly during the 1970s. If we’re heading into a repeat of the 1930s/1950s events, we’re due for a very serious drought in the southern plains. My part of the country is adjacent to the southern plains, and we share much of their cyclical weather pattern.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
If it were actually a fact that we are experiencing more extreme weather events. Which is a doubtful assertion. The only assertion we can make with any confidence about the “extreme weather events” is that we are experiencing more monetary damage. Hurricane season has been tame the last several years. We haven’t haven’t had any terrible snowstorms for a long time, and I mean storms that are dropping 6 feet of snow en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_Day_Blizzard) Some areas have had some flooding and some areas have experience drought, though I have noticed that places getting flooded just happen to have been built in the 100 year flood plain… and is California’s drought any worse than the one that caused the dust bowl? (It also appears to be more man made, as they irrigate desert land in order to farm, and divert water to the big cities. Water rights in the CA, and CO areas are a bit crazy I am told).
F
frobert
Guest
It’s simpler to believe and therefore easier to explain the population but it does not take into account the increasing frequency of extreme weather events over the last few decades.
In any event, many now believe that we passed the tipping points where humans could have made a difference and whether man-made or not we can expect some interesting times ahead of us.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear frobert,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.
As you may be aware Great Britain has recently been battered by some jolly severe storms, which some men have pointed to as a clear and unmistakable link to man-made global warming. However, this inclement weather has undoubtedly been driven by the jet stream which has been stuck further south than usual. There is a total absence of evidence that global man-made warming can cause the jet stream to become stuck in the way that it has this winter season. *If *this is owing to climate change then it is outside of our knowledge.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
F
frobert
Guest
A very good day to you too.
I am aware Great Britain’s devastating floods and storms, my sympathies go the people effected by the storms.
I agree that the changing jet stream that is causing the storms. Why the change? As the arctic warms, the warming affects the jet stream causing it move in abnormally. Whether the arctic warming is man made or not, it is the warming in the arctic that is likely causing the problems over Northern Europe and North America. The jet stream is also implicated in this summer’s unusually high temperatures. Granted, this theory and there may be opposing theories.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
But do we really know extreme weather events are “more frequent” than they were previously, or are they just more frequently reported? Last summer was virtually a “no hurricane” hurricane season. There was one major tornado in "tornado alley’ that got into the national news because it hit a major city, but there were plenty that happened (as always) but were not reported because they just went through open countryside. It just isn’t newsworthy to report that “a major tornado passed between Miami and Grove Oklahma, but then dissipated in McDonald County, Missouri somewhere north of Bear Hollow Road.”
I’ll add this. I have lived in this area for a very long time, and spend a lot of my time outdoors in all seasons, and except for those horrific cycles that hit now and then, there is no difference in weather at all, from my childhood to the present day.
That’s why I am concerned about the return of the drought cycle that recurs now and then, and always has.
F
frobert
Guest
Fair question. We don’t know for certain, but there are things we do know. According to an Allianz report; the impact of volatile weather on businesses’ profits is increasing and volatile weather activity is increasing around the world.
“From the Allianz report: the economic impact of increasing everyday weather volatility far exceeds the already huge sums annually associated with natural catastrophes. AGCS estimates that the impact of routine weather variation on the European Union’s economy could total as much as €406bn (£346 billion /$561bn) a year. As a comparison, during 2012, there were 905 natural catastrophes worldwide, 93% of which were weather-related disasters, costing US$170 billion[2]. And what’s more, the direct cost of weather volatility around the world is increasing significantly. According to Allianz, insurers have paid out US$70 billion globally for damages from extreme weather events every year for the last three years alone. Back in the 1980s, “only” US$15 billion a year was paid out for such claims.”
Note: Allianz is a German multinational financial services company
I wrote in previous post something similar to “we will only know for certain that climate changed when governments and business can no longer afford to repair or replace what was damaged by the weather.” As I commented before, we are in for some interesting times.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I still don’t think this tells us anything about MMGW or its costs. In last week’s snowstorm, some 75,000 flights were canceled. How many would have been canceled in 1955 with the very same weather?
And the more complex business arrangements and their required infrastructure gets, the more costly will be disturbances due to weather or anything else. Adjusting for inflation alone would account for more than half the increase in insurance losses between 1980 and now. Also, in the 1980s, “just in time” manufacturing, for example, was pretty much peculiar to Japan. That was adopted to a great degree in the U.S. during the 1990s and is still a trend. So, if you get a disruption to “just in time” delivery due to weather, there’s no fall back because nobody has any inventory to fall back on.
We don’t know yet how much the unnecessary government water deprivation of California growers will be, but I have seen it estimated at a loss of 20% of the nation’s agricultural output. Yes, there is a drought there, but the government is withholding adequate water for the sake of a fish. The more of that kind of artificial bottleneck we have to production, the greater will be losses due to disadvantageous weather.
And the Japanese earthquake and tsnunami causes economic losses between $205 and $340 billion. And that had nothing to do with weather.
Finally, while $70 billion in wordwide insurance losses is a lot when looked at from an individual’s perspective, it isn’t a lot in the overall scheme of things. Exxon Mobil and Walmart together pay about that much in income taxes annually. Included in the insurance losses would be crop insurance covering crops (like corn here in the Ozarks, for instance) that should never have been grown in the first place. Crop insurance for cotton in my state is frequently resorted to, and always has been. You can grow cotton here, but it’s chancey. Insurance makes up for the losses.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
Science always becomes pseudoscience whenever it comes to any highly politicized issue. Something being “peer reviewed” is meaningless if practically the whole scientific community has adopted the same bias in their initial assumptions.
G
gmx2014
Guest
As beautiful as this may be, I see it as being a factor in climate issues (and also, human sickness and disease).
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Regarding the atmospheric collapse, which happened in 2008, from this article,
“According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
My account of the 60% is … electricity itself.
As a life-long New Englander, I’m happy to say that this winter season has been mostly NORMAL. It truly upsets me when winter is abnormal.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Regarding the atmospheric collapse, which happened in 2008, from this article,
“According to Emmert and colleagues, low solar EUV accounts for about 30% of the collapse. Extra CO2 accounts for at least another 10%. That leaves as much as 60% unaccounted for.”
science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/
My account of the 60% is … electricity itself.
As a life-long New Englander, I’m happy to say that this winter season has been mostly NORMAL. It truly upsets me when winter is abnormal.
M
Monkey1976
Guest
Thermospheric collapses happen when the thermosphere cools. How would “electricity” cause atmospheric cooling?
F
frobert
Guest
Huge area of concern. Communities are being wiped out. I recently moved to an area in Florida that I believe will be both water and food sustainable at least over the next 20 years.
Not all tragic catastrophes are weather related.
Those are the insurance losses. Add up the reported weather related costs and it runs about 3/4 trillion annually and rising. As I said in my last post; “we will only know for certain that climate changed when governments and business can no longer afford to repair or replace what was damaged by the weather.”
I learned from you in a previous exchange we had so you know that I appreciate your view.
- Status