Global Warming: Your opinion ....

Rich people run countries, thus they are the ones to write the tax laws to enable the loop holes to avoid paying any tax, Only the commoners pay tax

 

In some countries, yes...

 

It's been confirmed. Final data shows that 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded – and scientists say human activity is to blame.

"The final data for 2016 was released on Wednesday by the three key agencies – the UK Met Office and Nasa and Noaa in the US – and showed 16 of the 17 hottest years on record have been this century. 2016 was the hottest year on record, setting a new high for the third year in a row, with scientists firmly putting the blame on human activities that drive climate change."

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ed-and-scientists-say-human-activity-to-blame

 

First "What Scientists say" is a lark. Despite what News media says there is still no real consensus.

My opinion on Global Warming
(This is a summary. The full version would take many pages.)

Global Warming is natural, inevitable and would happen if man where here or not.

Unfortunately despite being here almost 5 years I'm not 'chatty' enough (not enough posts) to be trusted not to spam, so I can't post images or links and it will be hard to show you what I mean. In other words this will be wordy and long with no pretty pictures.

The Earth goes through a continuous cycle between a hot period and an Ice Age.
For the last 400,000 years that cycle has been 80,000 to 100,000 years long.
(I'm going to use 90,000 for discussion and math.)
The cycle existed before 400,000 years ago as well but the time span was different. Some huge global event altered the old cycle and the new one has been consistent since.

All these graphs you see that go from the 1880's (or later) to present are ludicrous and show a serious lapse of reason.
A 150 year or less sample size on a 90,000 year cycle is outright ridiculous. It's a sample size of 0.167% or less.
No competent scientist would even try such a thing.
That is like estimating the total time it would take to go from the North Pole to the South Pole over land and sea (not air) by measuring your speed for the first 2 miles of the trip.
Or, like guessing who's going to win the Indy 500 after the first 0.83 (out of the 500) miles.
No competent scientist (or mathematician or engineer or related professions) would even try such a thing.
Those that do are ignoring that the cycle even exists. Rookie mistake.

So far as warming goes the 'power' of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant when compared to the 'power' of good ole H2O. Additionally the atmospheric H2O content can vary by several orders of magnitude.
- If there is anything both sides agree on it's that water cycles, movements and effects on the climate is vast, variable and so complex that no one yet fully understands it.
[By this essentially BOTH SIDES are actually admitting they are drawing conclusions when all the relevant facts aren't even known.]
There are old factors that still aren't fully understood.(For example: Ocean thermal currents) Additionally new factors are still being discovered that have yet to be studied at all. Namely they recently (last 5 years I think) discovered that atmospheric water vapor has waves (like the ocean has waves) Thus the greenhouse reflectivity effect of H2O is continuously variable with the height and speed of the waves. They are just now developing satellites and methods to measure and study this phenomena.
So, you have an unknown ever-changing variable the size of an aircraft carrier and you're going to blame everything on a variable the size of a BB.
Not working for me....

Look at the Vostok Ice Core data for the most recent 400,000 years. Link to pic follows.
(Personally I downloaded the ACTUAL data and put it into Excel so I can plot the data at higher resolutions.)
This graph probably has the least chance of anyone fudging/altering it. (Fix the url to see.)
h**ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
- Back to the previous remarks.
See how small 150 years is on that graph. The whole last 150 years would essentially be a single dot on the plot.
- Back to the graph.
Prior to 50,000 years ago (before man was involved) you can see on the rises that CO2 FOLLOWS temp by a few 100 to a 1000 years. (Is much easier to see in higher resolutions but you can see it.)
Thus if anything "drives" anything, temperature drives CO2 - NOT the other way around as the alarmists would have you believe.
That makes total sense for a couple of reasons.
First average global temp and humidity go hand-in-hand. (Not going to get into why now.) They 'move' the same way. Higher temps and more moisture means (on average, globally) fauna thrives. When fauna thrives there is more to die and rot which releases more CO2. - Same with ocean life. It thrives so there is more to die and rot releasing CO2. The delay is the time it takes for the fauna to adjust to the new more favorable conditions. Also at higher temps ocean water is less able to retain CO2 so more goes airborne. The water gets hotter first -then- the CO2 is released.
- Back to the graph.
If you look at the shape of the last 4 (before present) cycle peaks and compare to the current one it's easy to see that something as dampened the expected temperature rise. It essentially stopped and leveled off 10-15,000 years ago when it should have risen to a peak followed by a sharp drop. That drop is the beginning of the next Ice Age.
Based on the past cycles, RIGHT NOW we SHOULD be entering an Ice Age.
If we are heating up it's only because nature is trying to return to it's normal cycle and get to the peak.
(My supposition is that some condition AT the peak triggers the following drop.)
- If man has done anything at all it was to stabilize global temperatures and postpone the next Ice Age.
- I think it's much more likely that the (still disputed) large comet that supposedly hit Earth between 12,000 and 14,000 years ago actually did happen and the additional water being injected into the water cycle is what halted the temperature rise and destabilized the normal cycle..

So:
Is climate changing? - Yes, it's natural.
Did man do it? - No, it's natural.
.

 

Nonsense. The Q is: are we affecting it, are we having a large enough impact, given the sheer numbers AND our science and technology? Consensus of critically minded and independent scientists seems to have been reached in that regard.

 

A video worth watching.



I found it here.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm


I liken the rising levels of CO2 to the effects of Ammonia (urea) on a fish tank. If you over-populate
a fish tank, you have to take steps to remove the excess levels of urea, or else you will poison the fish.

Is it the fault of the fish? In a sense, yes. But: they do not know any better.
In the case of humans, we are intelligent enough to know that we have to take steps to protect our environment.

If we don't, then Nature comes up with ways to 'cull the herds'.

And Nature is an efficient killer.

We're causing the problem, but not out of malice.

 

No, Actually the question HERE is "Global Warming: Your opinion ...." (The title of the thread.)
As to your question. I just said no.

That is a false statement. It only "seems" that way due to News media hype and spin.
I hardly consider the Alarmist scientists "critical minded" particularly when it's been shown time and again that they aren't following the scientific method.

A number of prominent scientists (including some Nobel Prize winners) have quit their jobs because the institutions they work for set policies for the organization's stance on Global warming.
By setting it as policy essentially these organizations decided what the outcome of their current and future studies would be before the studies were even completed.
That is not how science is supposed to work.

The entire Alarmist's argument is based on the idea that CO2 drives temperature.
Data from times before man even existed shows that is not true so the foundation of ALL their arguments is based on myth.

Proving that CO2 is going up is pointless and irrelevant when CO2 doesn't actually do what they say it does.

 

I think you have a lot of reading to do...

 

@MJ

Well, he is clear about what he's talking about but switches from climate scientists to scientific papers with a slight of the hand. 97% of those papers were probably written by only a handful of climate scientists not 97%. I haven't checked the other claims yet and nowadays you don't get funding if you're anti AGW.

And my opinion? It has become a gravy train for everyone. Those who want to get grants and funds for and against, media about reporting on it, standing for public officials. And we know how reliable the media are about reporting. I think the same now applies to the scientific community unfortunately.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJfp15OK9NQ

Just my opinion of course.

 

@ Michaela Joy

All be it some years ago now, I've argued by points directly with the so called "SkepticalScience Team".
Their arguments were less than convincing. (And in some cases outright rhetoric.)

You really should look at who that team is before you buy anything they say on their site.
It's primarily composed of low level scientists who are funded by Global Warming research, journalist and other non-scientists.
In other words many of their key players are people that make more money the longer the scare exists.

As for me, I'm retired from Nuclear Engineering (power plants, not bombs) and my motivation is that I don't want to pay taxes to fund unnecessary research.
I haven't looked for a while (dunno if it's ongoing) but saw where at one point the US Gov't was planning to fund research into ways to scrub the CO2 from the atmosphere and pump it underground.
~ Insane!~
Probably dangerous too. More harm than good.

While I like your fish tank analogy I don't think it applies to the real world situation with CO2.

I totally agree that at some point Mother Nature will "cull the herd".
I've believed that since long before Global Warming became a popular subject.

 

I've had months long arguments with scientists, mathematicians and engineers on this topic.
Quite sure you're the one behind on you reading.
Perhaps you should not limit your reading to opinions voiced by Alarmists. It's apparent that's what you've done thus far.

Most Alarmists are well funded and can support pretty websites.
Most Skeptics are doing things pro bono.
.

 

@BobSheep: Well said. And I agree with you. Granted, we do need to keep the earth as clean as we can. But many of us see Global Warming as an another way
for the Government to raise taxes or add more regulations which in turn drive up the cost of living for everybody. And acedemia does profit from the research grants given out.
Grants that might be coming from our taxes.

TBH, we need to be more concerned with The Earth's magnetic poles switching. We're headed for another pole change, and the effects are far more catastrophic in the short term than climate change is.
When it took place 450,000 years ago, there was no technology on the planet. Now there is, and we are hopelessly addicted to technology. If the poles switch, it's not instantaneous;
it takes place over the span of a hundred years or so. That means that the earth will be without protection from the solar winds. And that's an Extinction level event for us.

At the very least, we'll be forced to rebuild humanity. And we may not be able to, depending on the damage done to the earth.

 

@PCBONEZ: I pointed out that site because I wanted to show how easy a person or persons with an agenda can manipulate the truth.
Whatever that truth is.

Please see my other post, which hopefully will clarify my position on Global Warming.

Edit: I'd like to hear your views on thorium salt reactors.

Welcome to MDL, btw.

 

@MJ - I agree about keeping the Earth as clean as possible. I am also aware of the expected pole reversal within the next few hundred years. That is indeed a big unknown. Will it be totally reversed or multi dipole and what will be the consequences of it?

 

@MJ - Thorium Salt reactors? Let the Chinese build them, then we should buy them. Actually, in business terms it's the other way around.

 

@BobSheep: I brought it up because PCBONEZ is a retired Nuclear Engineer, and I'd like to get his opinion on the technology.

There's a lot to be said about the opinion of those who were "on the inside" so to speak.

 

We wait then.

 

The magnetic poles shifting?
Not much we can or possibly should do to stop that if it should happen within our lifetime
How could we prevent that?

 

We can do nothing.