Climate Change Discussion

[Dingalingalong]

The C02 theory is bull crap too. Why do people go along with the climate change alarmist hype propoganda? Use some common sense and stop allowing the media to control you. Its really frustrating. The climate has always been changing. Its nothing new. Its nothing catastrophic and the human impact is very minimal. Sure, we are warming. Its nothing alarming in least bit. We warmed a long time ago and then cooled and now we are warming again. The climate goes in cycles. Of course the charts the alarmists show don't go back far enough in history to accurately show that wha we are experiencing now is nothing new.

Considering the “common” belief is climate change is real, i dont think it’s them who lack common sense. Besides semantics, I am surprised to see these arguments on a forum based on climate and meteorlogical science.

[AbbyJr]

Wide spread doubt in the scientific theory of agw is well noted. But I'm curious if you could actually back it up. All I've seen is tin foil hat level conspiracy. The actual science is 100% solid and trust me, I dont watch the news. If there were a theory that disproved it or even managed to cast doubt on the greenhouse effect and our impact, surely it would have been known by now.

You do realize how sbsurd it is to expect people to believe AGW is a worldwide hoax, supported by scientists, governments and Media around the world?

I appreciate the civil response. The problem is that the science in favour of the alarmism is skewed. Its known as pseudoscience. In all honesty, as much as I firmly disagree with the alarmist views, I wouldn't be so upset if they would give the other side a platform. But the media is one sided.

[AbbyJr]

Considering the “common” belief is climate change is real, i dont think it’s them who lack common sense. Besides semantics, I am surprised to see these arguments on a forum based on climate and meteorlogical science.

I never denied climate change. I denied that humans are causing catastrophic changes. The climate is and always will change. Its nothing new or anything to be alarmed about. Its called nature.

[Ovonucks]

The C02 theory is bull crap too. Why do people go along with the climate change alarmist hype propoganda? Use some common sense and stop allowing the media to control you. Its really frustrating. The climate has always been changing. Its nothing new. Its nothing catastrophic and the human impact is very minimal. Sure, we are warming. Its nothing alarming in least bit. We warmed a long time ago and then cooled and now we are warming again. The climate goes in cycles. Of course the charts the alarmists show don't go back far enough in history to accurately show that wha we are experiencing now is nothing new.

Posts like this is why I mostly browse, never post. Any time I think about posting more someone says something dumb (usually about climate change) and makes me change my mind Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring science is taking the easy way out of an issue than man has obviously exasperated. CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been and WE are responsible for that. Your kids, my kids, those are the ones that are going to suffer because of ignorance like this.

[Weather101]

The C02 theory is bull crap too. Why do people go along with the climate change alarmist hype propoganda? Use some common sense and stop allowing the media to control you. Its really frustrating. The climate has always been changing. Its nothing new. Its nothing catastrophic and the human impact is very minimal. Sure, we are warming. Its nothing alarming in least bit. We warmed a long time ago and then cooled and now we are warming again. The climate goes in cycles. Of course the charts the alarmists show don't go back far enough in history to accurately show that wha we are experiencing now is nothing new.

Dude stop lol this made no sense

[AbbyJr]

Posts like this is why I mostly browse, never post. Any time I think about posting more someone says something dumb (usually about climate change) and makes me change my mind Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring science is taking the easy way out of an issue than man has obviously exasperated. CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been and WE are responsible for that. Your kids, my kids, those are the ones that are going to suffer because of ignorance like this.

C02 does not drive climate.

By the way, its posts like yours that make me wonder why I even engage people on this subject.

[Antares]

The C02 theory is bull crap too. Why do people go along with the climate change alarmist hype propoganda? Use some common sense and stop allowing the media to control you. Its really frustrating. The climate has always been changing. Its nothing new. Its nothing catastrophic and the human impact is very minimal. Sure, we are warming. Its nothing alarming in least bit. We warmed a long time ago and then cooled and now we are warming again. The climate goes in cycles. Of course the charts the alarmists show don't go back far enough in history to accurately show that wha we are experiencing now is nothing new.

Urban heat islands are the biggest impact humans have made on climate. But even then it's still very localized.

[PortKells]

I appreciate the civil response. The problem is that the science in favour of the alarmism is skewed. Its known as pseudoscience. In all honesty, as much as I firmly disagree with the alarmist views, I wouldn't be so upset if they would give the other side a platform. But the media is one sided.

Thank you and I appreciate civility too. It makes things bearable in this never ending carousel of a debate.

Now where can I find evidence for your viewpoint? My evidence is from many hours spent combing over articles that I made sure were sourced. And like I said, I avoid articles I find on mainstream news sources. But I should add that many articles actually underestimate the pace and severity of climate change. I can and should find some sourced articles, when time permits.

Pseudoscience is a strong word to use, UNLESS you can show us the money in terms of solid, rock hard evidence to support it! This debate has to be scientific to a oid becoming completely meaningless and emotionally charged. I mean, after all, if you truly believe your viewpoint and are frustrated with the opposite viewpoint, don't you want to convince us? This is where I am so confused, to be honest. I would love to be convinced, I sure as hell dont want this world to be in deep doodoo!!

[PortKells]

Urban heat islands are the biggest impact humans have made on climate. But even then it's still very localized.

Is this your theory or someone else's?

Of course urban heat islands exist. But CO2 and methane are scientifically proven to be driving a warmer, less stable climate.

[Abby_wx]

Low solar this season was supposed to lead to impressive cold in the USA but the opposite happened.

It would be interesting to hear more on this subject. Is it entirely due to CO2, or are there another factors at play (what)?

I remember all of the talk about a cold period beginning around 2017... +/- two years as the margin of error, if I recall correctly. Well, it's been three years and we're at the bottom of the solar cycle... so this cold must be really taking its time.

[Antares]

Is this your theory or someone else's?

Of course urban heat islands exist. But CO2 and methane are scientifically proven to be driving a warmer, less stable climate.

It's just common sense.

The link between metropolises causing warmer localized temperatures is easily observable and obvious.

The truth is, we don't know how the climate system really works. For example, good luck trying to prove increasing CO2 is responsible for a consolidated polar vortex which has resulted in a non-winter (relatively) in the US and southern Canada this year (and as a result, a relatively cold winter at more northerly latitudes); or proving that it drives mechanisms such as the EPO, PNA, NAO, PDO, ENSO states, IOD, MJO, etc., which largely dictate the weather and climate over short and long periods of time.

In science you can only disprove things, not prove. So no, it has not been proven despite what they do in a lab or how many graphs and models they make.

[AbbyJr]

Thank you and I appreciate civility too. It makes things bearable in this never ending carousel of a debate.

Now where can I find evidence for your viewpoint? My evidence is from many hours spent combing over articles that I made sure were sourced. And like I said, I avoid articles I find on mainstream news sources. But I should add that many articles actually underestimate the pace and severity of climate change. I can and should find some sourced articles, when time permits.

Pseudoscience is a strong word to use, UNLESS you can show us the money in terms of solid, rock hard evidence to support it! This debate has to be scientific to a oid becoming completely meaningless and emotionally charged. I mean, after all, if you truly believe your viewpoint and are frustrated with the opposite viewpoint, don't you want to convince us? This is where I am so confused, to be honest. I would love to be convinced, I sure as hell dont want this world to be in deep doodoo!!

You make a good point. None of us here have provided any of our sources or evidence for our position. So if we want to have a constructive discussion, we should probably think about gathering together our evidence and sources and sharing them in our posts. Otherwise its just my word versus yours and likely would end up in an unproductive argument.

[AbbyJr]

It would be interesting to hear more on this subject. Is it entirely due to CO2, or are there another factors at play (what)?

I remember all of the talk about a cold period beginning around 2017... +/- two years as the margin of error, if I recall correctly. Well, it's been three years and we're at the bottom of the solar cycle... so this cold must be really taking its time.

This has been one of my main arguments all along. That is, the climate is so complex and thus to dumb it down to just C02 causing catastrophic changes is way over simplifying the complexity of the climate. I certainly wouldn't doubt that man has an impact. I just reject the notion that man is fully responsible and is endangering the earth to the point that its going to become inhabitable in the near future unless we cut down C02 levels. C02 is good for the environment. We need it. I was always taught this in school, before they started brainwashing kids into this alarmism non-sense.

[moonshadow0825]

C02 does not drive climate.

I agree with you on this for a couple of reasons, and similar to you I do believe climate is changing I am just not convinced CO2 is THE reason

first: historically we've had way warmer periods that weren't tied to CO2 emissions, this is from the University of Oslo department of Geosciences
and about 5 years ago there were news stories about how receding glaciers revealing old villages in Switzerland was proof that things are worse that ever. not sure how that tracks given the area had to have been ice free 4000 years ago for that village to exist

granted there are a lot of differing opinions on how CO2 affected the climate in previous millennia, if you want to have fun just google "CO2 levels historic" and the first page is full of scientific articles contradicting each other.

second, a lot of the alarm comes from model predictions, I'd hope everyone here would agree that models don't always pull through despite fervent hope on our part

in fact as recently as last month the journal Nature published:

“Emissions – the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading – Stop using the worst-case scenario for climate warming as the most likely outcome — more-realistic baselines make for better policy.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

the model that the most dire of predictions are based on requires a 500% increase in coal consumption from where we are today. Coal usage is down,there is a greater trend to sustainable energies and scientists still cannot say definitively how sensitive the atmosphere is to CO2 emissions despite 40 years of studying the topic. Yet many studies still rely on this specific model to prove their thesis and that is what makes it to the average person through the media.

while i have great respect for journalists what is presented in media is by definition alarmist, Don Henley sang about it back in the 80's "Get the widow on the set" and I deal with the media alarmism every time there is volatility in the markets.

I'm old enough to remember when we thought the world was going back into another ice age, I've seen numerous predictions of the "end of winter", nor more snow etc due to O2 that haven't come to pass.

I'm also old enough to remember when science "proved" that cholesterol levels in the blood were connected to cholesterol in food.

Apologies if this comes off as jaded, climate is changing, there is no question about that but this focus on 1 reason to the exclusion of others does not seem prudent to me, jmho.

[John]

I agree with you on this for a couple of reasons, and similar to you I do believe climate is changing I am just not convinced CO2 is THE reason

first: historically we've had way warmer periods that weren't tied to CO2 emissions, this is from the University of Oslo department of Geosciences
and about 5 years ago there were news stories about how receding glaciers revealing old villages in Switzerland was proof that things are worse that ever. not sure how that tracks given the area had to have been ice free 4000 years ago for that village to exist

granted there are a lot of differing opinions on how CO2 affected the climate in previous millennia, if you want to have fun just google "CO2 levels historic" and the first page is full of scientific articles contradicting each other.

second, a lot of the alarm comes from model predictions, I'd hope everyone here would agree that models don't always pull through despite fervent hope on our part

in fact as recently as last month the journal Nature published: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3

the model that the most dire of predictions are based on requires a 500% increase in coal consumption from where we are today. Coal usage is down,there is a greater trend to sustainable energies and scientists still cannot say definitively how sensitive the atmosphere is to CO2 emissions despite 40 years of studying the topic. Yet many studies still rely on this specific model to prove their thesis and that is what makes it to the average person through the media.

while i have great respect for journalists what is presented in media is by definition alarmist, Don Henley sang about it back in the 80's "Get the widow on the set" and I deal with the media alarmism every time there is volatility in the markets.

I'm old enough to remember when we thought the world was going back into another ice age, I've seen numerous predictions of the "end of winter", nor more snow etc due to O2 that haven't come to pass.

I'm also old enough to remember when science "proved" that cholesterol levels in the blood were connected to cholesterol in food.

Apologies if this comes off as jaded, climate is changing, there is no question about that but this focus on 1 reason to the exclusion of others does not seem prudent to me, jmho.

Great post!!