Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[suffolkowner]

until you can verify the difference don't do anything. The historical record shows that there was more CO2 a long time ago. Temperatures were higher, a long time ago. Oh and CO2 levels were lower a long time ago and temperatures were lower a long time ago. And we had nothing to do with any of them a long time ago. And those higher temperatures a long time ago were higher than the UN's panic threshold. CO2 is a trace gas. As far as they can tell, an increase in CO2 improves plant growth which means we eat better and cheaper. The burning of hydrocarbons has resulted in you living longer and better and warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer. It has meant that you can show your kids around Niagara Falls one week and go skiing in Lake Placid the next. The so called cures for global warming involve giving up on all of the above. Are you sure that is what you want? Remember, you haven't determined that they will even work. You are trusting the same people who said Covid came from a Chinese bat market to not be lying to you. That to me is about as valid as following the lead of Jimmy Jones

I assume by historical you mean paleontological/geological records? Otherwise that statement is not correct. We are at 560 ppm CO2eq right now or 420+ ppm CO2. The last time CO2 alone was this high was about 14 million yrs ago. Over the last million years CO2 has alternated between highs of around 280 during interglacials and lows of 180 during the glacials. We were presently trending into a glacial period although it was not expected to be as severe as the last one due to our present alignment of the Milankovitch cycles. The temperature change during these transitions was around 1.5C per 2000 yrs. Plants arent CO2 limited.
The rest of what you said has nothing to do with AGW directly

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While the trudeau liberals refuse to sell cleaner burning natural gas to Japan and Europe, they've almost doubled coal sales to Red China since 2015. Almost 20 million tonnes (22046226 tons) of the dirtiest burning fossil fuel in 2023. Helping to create almost 12 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions of a total of 14 billion tonnes of green house gas emissions in 2022.

All the while Canada's convicted ecoterrorist wants us bankrupt, freezing in the dark to compensate for a country he won't impose climate restrictions on, but encourages to buy more coal. Something is seriously wrong with this scenario. Why aren't the climate activists and experts bitching China out? Why do they get a buy? Why do economic measures apply to us but not them?

More government hypocrisy at our expense.

Canada’s coal exports up again in 2023 as government’s promised ban elusive | Globalnews.ca

The boom in exports of the kind of coal burned to make electricity comes as Canada leads a charge to end the use of coal as a source of power worldwide.

globalnews.ca

China - CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Country Profile

Data on China’s greenhouse gas emissions

ourworldindata.org

 

[ArmyRick]

you can isolate Carbon sources by isotopes

There are three carbon isotopes. Carbon Isotope 13 (from fossil fuels usually) can also come from other sources LIKE VOLCANIC eruptions.

water vapour is a feedback

No, its fucking not, Its a DRIVER in weather and weather is a driver in climate. Its a feedback because you say so? Why do you think when we get massive forest fires that literally cause moisture clouds to lift higher in the atmosphere and then its a delayed release with extra volume? as one example. In other words, massive BC forest fires cuase Ontario and Quebec to have twice the rain and Alberta and Saskatchewan to have less. Thats only one example.
The massive hot air pocket created over the Sahara Desert contributes to major hurricane activity in the Atlantic, again, we are dealing with atmospheric H2O. In theory (and thats all we have) is if we green the Sahara, it creates lower heat pockets moving into the Atlantic and thus toned down Hurricanes. In Theory.

long term events have always been easier to measure this is documented. What cataclysmic climate events are you talking about?

There is always some dooms day scenario we have to act NOW presented by Politicians and Activist. Like AL Gores the Arctic Ice will disappear by what was it? Like 2012?
You either living in a closet or deliberately missing the panic warnings

Oil companies are lacking money?

Right now in Canada, they aint thriving under Trudeau. And that also contributes to the overall economy?

If your a "Damn the greedy oil bastards" kind of person, first just know the Lorax was a fictional cartoon and second, everyone in business is trying to make money. Canada oil and gas is probably the cleanest on the planet

alternatives to what? alternative to burning carbon? Your opposition to specific policy suggestions have nothing to do with the evidence

Alternatives like Wind Turbine and Solar Panels? Look at the true audit on both of those not really good energy alternatives.
The amount of fossil fuel used to make, ship and erect and maintain a wind turbine is not recovered in its life, its LIMITED life.
Solar? As a small scale energy booster for buildings its ok, but not mass energy production. Solar needs coal to produce BTW.

Again irrelevant to the evidence

Evidence? Its fucking COLD in Canada and you need heat, one way or another to survive.

what is the hyperbole and cult bullshit?

There is plenty of it. Listen to the Liberals defend the carbon tax. Their justification for introducing it in the first place.

YOU need to do more than a 5 minute google search for your answers.

 

[suffolkowner]

There are three carbon isotopes. Carbon Isotope 13 (from fossil fuels usually) can also come from other sources LIKE VOLCANIC eruptions.

No, its fucking not, Its a DRIVER in weather and weather is a driver in climate. Its a feedback because you say so? Why do you think when we get massive forest fires that literally cause moisture clouds to lift higher in the atmosphere and then its a delayed release with extra volume? as one example. In other words, massive BC forest fires cuase Ontario and Quebec to have twice the rain and Alberta and Saskatchewan to have less. Thats only one example.
The massive hot air pocket created over the Sahara Desert contributes to major hurricane activity in the Atlantic, again, we are dealing with atmospheric H2O. In theory (and thats all we have) is if we green the Sahara, it creates lower heat pockets moving into the Atlantic and thus toned down Hurricanes. In Theory.

There is always some dooms day scenario we have to act NOW presented by Politicians and Activist. Like AL Gores the Arctic Ice will disappear by what was it? Like 2012?
You either living in a closet or deliberately missing the panic warnings

Right now in Canada, they aint thriving under Trudeau. And that also contributes to the overall economy?

If your a "Damn the greedy oil bastards" kind of person, first just know the Lorax was a fictional cartoon and second, everyone in business is trying to make money. Canada oil and gas is probably the cleanest on the planet


Alternatives like Wind Turbine and Solar Panels? Look at the true audit on both of those not really good energy alternatives.
The amount of fossil fuel used to make, ship and erect and maintain a wind turbine is not recovered in its life, its LIMITED life.
Solar? As a small scale energy booster for buildings its ok, but not mass energy production. Solar needs coal to produce BTW.

Evidence? Its fucking COLD in Canada and you need heat, one way or another to survive.

There is plenty of it. Listen to the Liberals defend the carbon tax. Their justification for introducing it in the first place.

YOU need to do more than a 5 minute google search for your answers.

I dont think theres anything in your post thats accurate or relevant. Ive been following this issue since the 80's. I cant think of any scientific theory that continues to have this public debate that surrounds it.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

www.ipcc.ch

Im perfectly comfortable with their being no alternative energy source than fossil fuels it has nothing to do with AGW
This thread just continues to misconstrue expertise and opinion and expertise and activism.
Exxon was one of the first organizations to come up with a definitive analysis of AGW in 1962. They must have been a bunch of pinko commies

 

[ArmyRick]

I dont think theres anything in your post thats accurate or relevant. Ive been following this issue since the 80's. I cant think of any scientific theory that continues to have this public debate that surrounds it.

IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

www.ipcc.ch

Im perfectly comfortable with their being no alternative energy source than fossil fuels it has nothing to do with AGW
This thread just continues to misconstrue expertise and opinion and expertise and activism.
Exxon was one of the first organizations to come up with a definitive analysis of AGW in 1962. They must have been a bunch of pinko commies

Nothing in my post is accurate because you say so? Sure. I'll lose sleep on that.

Yeah, the IPCC has admitted to making mistakes and errors in the past.

If you hitched your wagon and everything about your beliefs on the mainstream narrative to this, thats tough luck for you. Next election, we shall see how Canadians feel.

 

[ArmyRick]

To everyone that follows this thread, shall I post some very convincing videos of counter narratives? Yeah or ney? Warning they are long.

 

[Remius]

Next election, we shall see how Canadians feel.

wait, you think the next election will be because of a belief or non belief in climate change?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Michael Mann's study is the most replicated in the history of science

Replicability is consistency, which is not the same as accuracy.

 

[ArmyRick]

wait, you think the next election will be because of a belief or non belief in climate change?

Its already being called the Carbon Tax election, why do we have Carbon Tax?

 

[Remius]

It’s already being called the Carbon Tax election, why do we have Carbon Tax?

I certainly think the carbon tax is an issue.

That has nothing to do with the belief in climate change.

 

[ArmyRick]

wait, you think the next election will be because of a belief or non belief in climate change?

Most of us accept climate change. You are missing the point, again. Hell, I will even say humans machinery and technology contributes to it. To what extent? Who knows. I don't think anyone does know.

 

[ArmyRick]

I certainly think the carbon tax is an issue.

That has nothing to do with the belief in climate change.

If Canadians are really believing that climate change is our fault, then I would say their is a good chance they will support the carbon tax. Just a theory.

 

[suffolkowner]

Nothing in my post is accurate because you say so? Sure. I'll lose sleep on that.

Yeah, the IPCC has admitted to making mistakes and errors in the past.

If you hitched your wagon and everything about your beliefs on the mainstream narrative to this, thats tough luck for you. Next election, we shall see how Canadians feel.

because I said so? NO Because 60 yrs of evidence backed theory? YES
All alternatives refuted over those decades
mainstream narrative? I dont even understand what this means
How Canadians feel is irrelevant

To everyone that follows this thread, shall I post some very convincing videos of counter narratives? Yeah or ney? Warning they are long.

why would anyone value a random video over published research?

Replicability is consistency, which is not the same as accuracy.

Consistency of what exactly they are not even necessarily using the same methods. Accuracy has been shown over time

If Canadians are really believing that climate change is our fault, then I would say their is a good chance they will support the carbon tax. Just a theory.

nonsense people will act in their own self interests, whether they believe it or not is irrelevant

 

[Remius]

Most of us accept climate change. You are missing the point, again. Hell, I will even say humans machinery and technology contributes to it. To what extent? Who knows. I don't think anyone does know.

What point And how again? Your statement was that “we will see how Canadians feel next election” to which you doubled down by stating “It’s already being called the Carbon Tax election, why do we have Carbon Tax?”

All of which was the espouse to my query about the belief in claim te change or not. You brought up the carbon tax as your answer to my question.

Full disclosure in case you think this is a trap of some sort. I do think that climate change is real. I do think that human activity has a part in that. But I certainly don’t the carbon tax is the best way to solve the issue. Certainly not in this economic climate.

But if I vote CPC, it is certainly not going to be an indictment of climate change arguments.

 

[ArmyRick]

why would anyone value a random video over published research?

OK, so thats a no for you.

And the scientist I will be presenting are literally Michael Mann's peers. Fellow PhD very well published.

 

[ArmyRick]

What point And how again? Your statement was that “we will see how Canadians feel next election” to which you doubled down by stating “It’s already being called the Carbon Tax election, why do we have Carbon Tax?”

All of which was the espouse to my query about the belief in claim te change or not. You brought up the carbon tax as your answer to my question.

Full disclosure in case you think this is a trap of some sort. I do think that climate change is real. I do think that human activity has a part in that. But I certainly don’t the carbon tax is the best way to solve the issue. Certainly not in this economic climate.

But if I vote CPC, it is certainly not going to be an indictment of climate change arguments.

Just a theory.

You caught that line? I actually don't know.

My best guess is that many Canadians will associate the current Climate Doomsday Alarmism that the Trudeau government pushes can only be countered with a carbon tax. Just a guess.

Anyways, Lets take gloves off. And move this part of the discussion over to one of the political rings where it belongs

 

[Remius]

You caught that line? I actually don't know.

Yes. I was writing while that was posted.

My best guess is that many Canadians will associate the current Climate Doomsday Alarmism that the Trudeau government pushes can only be countered with a carbon tax. Just a guess.

Or housing, inflation the economy etc etc might be the more dominate factor?

Anyways, Lets take gloves off. And move this part of the discussion over to one of the political rings where it belongs

You can if you want. But the fact is that most polling shows a majority of Canadians believe in man made climate change. That doesn’t necessarily translate as a voting issue.

The carbon tax certainly will. Because it hits the pocket book at a time when everything is.

The argument you are making is similar to saying that we need a new road and most people are fine with that. But because they are hungry and have no shelter they aren’t keen on having their money spent on the road. That doesn’t translate to being against the road it only means they have other things to worry about and aren’t in a position to spend on a road that may or may not help or work.

 

[suffolkowner]

OK, so thats a no for you.

And the scientist I will be presenting are literally Michael Mann's peers. Fellow PhD very well published.

Im not going to watch any videos thats a waste of my time. Ill look at their research though

 

[Brad Sallows]

Consistency of what exactly they are not even necessarily using the same methods. Accuracy has been shown over time

Replicating an experiment or a statistical analysis of some measurements and getting the same result is just an indication of consistency. Getting the same answer doesn't confirm whether it's wrong or right. Using different proxies might suggest whether the result is reliable, but I doubt there are enough proxies that can be measured on the same time mesh as we have been using to measure contemporary temperatures for the past few decades.

 

[Fishbone Jones]