Climate Change - Fact or Fiction

[LogicalFallacy]

In response to @Jane I've created this topic in the appropriate forum, and hopefully the title is acceptable to her.

 

A few rules I think to set our frames of reference. This is about the science (Or lack thereof) of climate change, and specifically if the earth is warming, and if so what is causing it?

 

This is not debating the political solutions or total lack of them thereof. "I don't think electric cars will solve the issue therefore global warming is fake" is not an argument against whether or not its happening. We are not discussing the political minefield of whether or not politicians should concern themselves with what scientists are saying.

 

Personally, I largely accept the science of climate change, though I don't think it to be the greatest existential threat we face. I think the greatest threat is the quadfactor of pollution of our environment, increasing population, species extinction and global warming combined.

 

You will be expected to back up your statements with supporting references.

 

So that being said I'll let Jane make her opening statement on this subject and go from there.

[Jane]

Ok one reply , how about we both state exactly what we believe about climate?  Sometimes people get into arguments without even stating what exactly it is they believe first. 

 

Here is what I think:  I do not believe in man made global warming that is going to cause some catastrophe.  I do not believe the U.S. should pay any sort of money to the UN to prevent this catastrophe.  I do not think there is any solid proof.  I do believe the climate changes for a variety of reasons.  I do not believe humanity currently has the capability to do anything about it. 

 

Your turn    

 

Oh crap, lol, not off to a good start, I didn't read your post!! I just read the forum question.   I guess we don't disagree all that much.  But I will post you some specifics tomorrow, I am really tired, had a doctor appointment today which was a long trip

[LogicalFallacy]

All good.

 

I didn't go too deep into detail as I wanted to see where you wanted to start out.

 

We do appear to disagree on somethings and agree on others based on our very brief opening statements.

 

I'll post a more detailed one later and wait for your specific post.

[Jane]

Ok, not a lot of time either, got to get ready for farmers market tomorrow ( baking bread now) , first time back for me since my accident. I hope I can do it.

Just a few things,  it is very hard to discuss this issue without getting into politics, because that is the motive behind it.  But I will try.  

 

Do you know what TR 55 is?  It's rainfall curves used in engineering that are used to help figure out for example what size drainage pipe you need in what area.  Those are based on  climate data collected before the  1970s. I started doubting official government data when the data this is based on could not be located.

 

I was working on entering old hardcopy data into a database and calculating statistics on lakes ( in a U.S. State) , and a lot of the data was crap.  A lot of the data from various State and local government agencies was handwritten notes in old ledgers going back to the 1930s in some cases.   A LOT of it was total crap.  Survey benchmarks were off by many feet and some of the elevations were impossible ( because entire cities would have flooded had they been correct, but there was no historical record of that happening).   I also added temperature data to go along with it , you should have been able to correlate low lake levels with high temps and low rainfalls.  But that didn't happen.  The data was such crap, I ended up throwing half of it out.  The rest was still questionable, but I had to give the boss something ( they do not want to here no!! I suspect it is like that with most government agencies) .

 

So, we started to take new , accurate measurements, I had a survey crew install new accurate benchmarks over a period of several years and I went out personally many times to measure the levels, temps, dates , locations and compared them with old data. It rarely matched. I kept only data that was remotely reasonable.  What I found was that rainfall amounts and temperatures vary widely ( there is a huge range in the data) and there is no definite trend anywhere.   So to make things easier, we installed dataloggers ( telemetry) that automatically measured all this and put it in a computer database.  Well, the data sucked. Half the time the dataloggers didn't function properly and the data had to be thrown out.   I was not impressed considering how many hundreds of thousands of $ in tax money this system cost.  

What I am saying here is that if you use say 50 years of climate related data in any one location, you will get a wide range.  You might have 10 degrees or more change in average temperature from one year to the next in any one location.   All it takes is a high year, or a low year, to make your trendline face the other direction.  Do you understand what I am saying here? If not, I can explain it further.  My point is that all this supposed data various government agencies have is highly questionable, and anyone can make the statistics produce any graph they want.  I know I could.  If I had a boss that wanted to show warming in some location, I certainly could make that happen ( just by throwing out low temp data as outliers for example) , same the other way around.   Old data is even more questionable, since there was no accurate way of measuring anything and keeping track of it. 

 

Some guy on another forum where this was discussed sent me data from England going back to 1700 in some little town, and it had no dates, just monthly averages, no info of who collected that data, and the data had temperatures measured to the hundreds of a degree!! Do you see the problem with this?  They had no way in hell back then to measure anything to that accuracy!  It makes the entire thing questionable. But for kicks, I did put the data into a spreadsheet, and it showed  only a tiny minimal warming trend of less than 1 degree over a period of hundreds of years.  Very questionable considering temperatures changed for any one month of any year for as much as 30 degrees!  

 

 I started questioning the TR55 data , and contacted various agencies like the USGS, and NOAA to get the data the rainfall curves are based on.  I got nowhere!!!  If I can't get this data, who can?  I wanted to see if the data made sense but I never even got to the point where I could determine that. (this was about 15 years ago) 

 

So, I question ANY perfect little global warming graph from NOAA or any other government agency.  I want to see the actual data they based the graphs on. I want to see locations, temperatures, dates and how it was measured and by whom.  This data is not available.  I have asked many times on various forums for someone to produce this data and they can't.  The ones that do , there is always  a problem with it ( like it makes no sense, like my lake elevation that were impossible)

TR 55 mostly works in engineering design, so nobody really cares.  I think the original rainfall amounts were overestimated, so you rarely get more, but when you do, you can just blame it on extreme weather events. 

 

So, the burden of proof is on the people that believe the entire planet is warming. Just like the burden of proof is on Christians that God exists .  We do not have to prove he does not exist. 

 

Do this, if you really want to get into it and have the time.  Find some reliable temperature data for a large city ( that should have kept some data) like maybe NYC, or London, or Berlin.  Find where that data came from, how it was measured and who recorded it.  Then put the data into a simple spreadsheet and calculate some statistics on it, and tell me if there is any real consistent warming.   You have to admit, if there is global warming caused by CO2 increase, SOME location SOMEWHERE needs to show consistent and real warming over a long period of time.  You need to have at least 100 years worth of data.   Good luck and please don't tell me some satellite measured temps at the freakin North Pole! Not acceptable, because too hard to verify, nobody lives there, and , the pole moves.  

 

Got to go

 

(Notice we haven't even gotten to the CO2 yet...) 

 

[florduh]

Bob Dylan said it best, "You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows."

 

Climate change is obvious and in your face every day. It seems rather disingenuous to say in a downpour that you need calibrated rain gauges before admitting that it is indeed raining. 

[Jane]

bread baked....

 

Sorry for the many typos in my post, I typed fast, and didn't read it over before posting , I do know how to write proper English if I try...

 

And yes Florduh, the weather does change daily and nobody seems to be able to accurately predict it very often even only a day ahead.  I doubt very seriously anyone can predict it 50 years into the future like some so called climate scientists wish to claim

 

[wellnamed]

It is definitely known that data sets used for measuring climate change (say temperature anomalies at various locations over time) are messy. Whenever I've looked at IPCC publications they usually account for that by charting measures along with some indication of the estimated error.

 

Just as a random example, I did a Google Image Search for "IPCC temperature anomaly with error bars" and the first result was this chart from NOAA, where the little gray bars above and below the line represent the uncertainty, most of which (as I understand it) is a result of known measurement issues, of which there are a variety.

 

 

The bars tend to be smaller with more recent data because the technology has gotten better, obviously.

 

It's not completely unreasonable to want to look at all of the data and to be curious about just how problematic the sources of error might be, and it's even scientifically worthwhile to have people engaged in that exercise, I think. But it is probably unreasonable to expect to get that kind of information on an internet discussion forum. It would probably require years of research for someone to satisfy their skepticism if they want to rely only on their own evaluation of primary evidence. I think it's one of those areas where (from a public policy perspective) there is an inescapable need to establish trust that scientific institutions have already done this work adequately.

 

Here is where the comparison is made to trust in religious authorities (and also all the politics), but epistemologically speaking I don't think it's possible to completely escape the need to have some trust in various others, including scientific institutions. That's sort of the point of that old quote that "if I have seen further than others, it's because I stood on the shoulders of giants." No individual can know as much "from scratch" (as it were) as we can know working together. But that requires some level of trust. I'm comfortable with this because I think I have pretty good reasons to have a higher level of trust in various scientific institutions than I do in religious ones.

 

Which is not to say that I don't also wish to understand more on an individual level, so as to require less trust. But given limited time and resources I have to make some choices about where to focus those efforts, and it seems to make sense to trust the established consensus about climate change, at least as far as the claim goes about increasing temperatures, CO₂ levels, and things like that. A slightly higher amount of skepticism may be warranted about various predictive models. Anyway, that's my $.02

[Jane]

This graph is just exactly the kind of thing I was talking about!!! WHERE is the actual data that produced this graph?  Think about this, do you REALLY think that in 1880 they were able to calculate earth's temperature correctly within even 1 degree?  This graph is nonsense and I bet you will never find the actual data on how they arrived at it ( like I said, locations, dates, temperatures , who did the measuring and what they used to measure with)

 

And I DID years of research on some of this, and so did others.  Here is a list of scientists and other professionals that dealt with this in some way ( I am on this list btw)

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

 

I understand what you are saying, that you can't and won't research this for yourself and you just want to trust "the authorities".  But not all "authorities " agree on this. Mostly just the ones that will benefit from it financially or in some other way.   But you could do what I suggested, just start small. Find real temp data for a large city and put it in a spreadsheet.  It's not that hard, almost everyone has Excel on their computers and it has all the statistical functions in it, and will make a graph for you. 

 

This topic is sort of a sore subject for me personally. I hated being in a position where I was expected to produce results that were just not true.  It happened all the time.  Then the incredible amount of money wasted on stupid things while real environmental issues on this planet are not taken care of ( like currently the rain forest in Brazil is burning down)   It bothered me so much that I ended up leaving a professional career of 20 years with a very high paying salary to move to the middle of nowhere and become a farmer.  The stress of it all caused me to have panic attacks which are now gone ( been away from this all for a few years now).   I personally wished they would fire every single person in a few government agencies and start over with real scientists and people not controlled by politicians.  
 

Some of your here live in other countries that don't have a government like the U.S. so you can't relate.  You might have governments similar to Europe where "regular" people can get elected , there are more than 2 parties and such, and you have very little corruption.  Here not so much. I know this isn't about politics but it is hard to avoid, since politicians pretty much control the flow of data.  

 

 

[Jane]

Want to say one more things here today, I DO worry about the environment and do think there are way too many people on this planet, and we are doing massive damage to the planet in many ways , and some are very real, like that gigantic fire in the rain forest in Brazil.  I am not some flat earth cook that doesn't believe in birth control, clinging to the bible...just pointing that out' 

Any of you ever been to a country with REAL massive pollution? I have , Mexico and India. I loved India but the pollution was horrible. 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Well this threads off to a cracking start and I haven't even started my first serious post . Keep it up. 

[florduh]

4 hours ago, Jane said:

And yes Florduh, the weather does change daily and nobody seems to be able to accurately predict it very often even only a day ahead.  I doubt very seriously anyone can predict it 50 years into the future like some so called climate scientists wish to claim

Predicting the local weather day to day is not climatology. 

 

[florduh]

1 hour ago, Jane said:

Any of you ever been to a country with REAL massive pollution? I have , Mexico and India. I loved India but the pollution was horrible. 

You do realize that we share the planet with those countries, right?

 

But in answer to your question, yes I have been to a country with massive pollution: the USA. We used to have smog alerts in the major cities and it wasn't safe for the sick and elderly to go outside. We had a river catch fire. We took some measures to relieve that problem and it worked!!! However, the current wisdom is that clean air and water cuts into corporate profits, so screw the environment.  So it has been demonstrated in my lifetime that polluters cause problems that we can reverse if we have the will to fight the big money.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Just curious, I keep seeing news blurbs about the ice up north melting at tremendous rates. Whether or not it is based on human activity, there seems to be a lot more glacial ice melting and not rebuilding. That said, I'm basing this on news blurbs like this: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/16/greenlands-massive-ice-melt-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-until-2070/

 

That's all a layman like myself tends to see. Is there something not true about it? 

 

(I see two things, climate change and whether or not humans are causing it vs natural cycles)

[wellnamed]

3 hours ago, Jane said:

WHERE is the actual data that produced this graph?  Think about this, do you REALLY think that in 1880 they were able to calculate earth's temperature correctly within even 1 degree? 

 

Your question seems like a misunderstanding to me. The data from the 19th century are not estimates of global temperature, they are thermometer reports from various ship and ground stations. The global temperature anomalies are estimated from aggregating all of the different station reports from a given time period and applying various corrections to them. The estimates then are the result of applying modern techniques to very old raw data.

 

Bearing in mind that I'm disclaiming any expertise, you can find a lot of information about how this works from looking up various articles. One place I often start when I'm looking for information is the ACS Climate Science Toolkit, which is one of the better resources I've found. The page on temperature anomaly measurements gives a pretty good high level overview of the sources of information, and also shows how different data sets converge on similar results once you get to the 20th century, which makes sense given improvements in tech and record keeping. The Wiki page for the Instrumental temperature record also has some citations which I dug into a little bit.

 

Those pages led me, for example, to this article: An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network-Daily Database, which provides a bit more detail about the data sources:

 

Quote

The U.S. collection contains daily data from a dozen separate datasets archived at NOAA/NCDC. As shown in Table 2, these archives include some of the earliest observations available for the United States (from the U.S. Forts and Voluntary Observer Program covering much of the nineteenth century; Dupigny-Giroux et al. 2007) as well as the latest measurements from the state-of-the-art climate monitoring stations that make up the U.S. Climate Reference Network (deployed early in the twenty-first century). GHCN-Daily thus contains the most complete collection of U.S. daily data available.

 

Table 2 is unfortunately pretty hard to read (very small image), but mentions some NCDC data sets with data going back to the 19th century.

 

I also looked briefly at this article: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: A new data set from 1850, which links to the overview above. It goes into less detail about the specific sources of data but does into quite a bit of detail about how its processed and how uncertainty is measured.

 

From my perspective it would be nice if I could find an article intended for a more lay audience with a bit more history of some of this, but the gist seems to be that you have a large number of independent temperature readings, taken with different equipment, at different places, over a long period of time. Some of the original log-books for the older data exist in places like the British Museum (particularly maritime records). Eventually a lot of it was digitized and collected into these types of databases, and so it's unsurprising to me that most articles elide the kinds of questions about sourcing which you are raising, citing instead the databases. This is pretty typical of the way standard large datasets are developed in various scientific fields, in my experience.

 

It seems like you could dig even further for more information about specific sources. I do think at some point it probably doesn't make that much sense to focus on uncertainties in data from the 19th century, though, because you could easily limit the graphs to the last 50-60 years and still feel quite confident in the general conclusion about temperatures rising.

 

[LogicalFallacy]

19 hours ago, Jane said:

So, we started to take new , accurate measurements, I had a survey crew install new accurate benchmarks over a period of several years and I went out personally many times to measure the levels, temps, dates , locations and compared them with old data. It rarely matched.

 

I'm confused here- why would you expect new data to match old data? If indeed the climate is shifting then ipso facto new data sets will be different.

 

19 hours ago, Jane said:

I kept only data that was remotely reasonable.

 

What do you mean remotely reasonable? 

 

19 hours ago, Jane said:

 What I found was that rainfall amounts and temperatures vary widely ( there is a huge range in the data) and there is no definite trend anywhere.

 

They do vary widely, true, but there are trends.

 

19 hours ago, Jane said:

 You might have 10 degrees or more change in average temperature from one year to the next in any one location.   All it takes is a high year, or a low year, to make your trendline face the other direction.  Do you understand what I am saying here?

 

I understand what you are saying but I'm skeptical of the claim. I can get temperature measurements going back decades for the city where I live and it has never shown 10 degree shifts.

 

And as far as shifting trendline direction goes - that would would only occur in small data sets, ones that are basically level to such a degree that the next cold year shows a down trend or the next high year shows an up trend, or ones with massive errors in them.

 

19 hours ago, Jane said:

My point is that all this supposed data various government agencies have is highly questionable, and anyone can make the statistics produce any graph they want.

 

Your point is that every agency, even the non governmental ones, from just about every country on earth are all either incompetent morons, or all intentionally screwing the data. Or perhaps they all know stuff we don't because that's their job.

 

You see its not just the US that's doing all this research. And the US alone has at least 13 different agencies involved in climate research - NASA is just one. NOAA is another.

 

 

19 hours ago, Jane said:

Do this, if you really want to get into it and have the time.  Find some reliable temperature data for a large city ( that should have kept some data) like maybe NYC, or London, or Berlin.  Find where that data came from, how it was measured and who recorded it.  Then put the data into a simple spreadsheet and calculate some statistics on it, and tell me if there is any real consistent warming.   You have to admit, if there is global warming caused by CO2 increase, SOME location SOMEWHERE needs to show consistent and real warming over a long period of time.

 

If it is CO2 then I'd only expect to see temperature pick up from heavy industrialization which is what we see. 

 

I take it you don't dispute that CO2 has increased?

 

19 hours ago, Jane said:

You need to have at least 100 years worth of data.

 

Why 100? If the last 30 years show an increase you can say you have an increase in temperature over 30 years. Why not the last 1000 years? Million? Billion? Why 100?

 

19 hours ago, Jane said:

(Notice we haven't even gotten to the CO2 yet...) 

 

I did notice that. So far you case largely seems to be that we can't trust any data sources from anywhere in the world making the entire science rather useless. Correct?

[trashy]

23 hours ago, Jane said:

So, I question ANY perfect little global warming graph from NOAA or any other government agency.  I want to see the actual data they based the graphs on. I want to see locations, temperatures, dates and how it was measured and by whom.  This data is not available.  I have asked many times on various forums for someone to produce this data and they can't.  The ones that do , there is always  a problem with it ( like it makes no sense, like my lake elevation that were impossible)

 

Most, like Mann, have resisted revealing both the original source data *and* the exact algorithms used to produced their smoothed graphs. It has taken a few dedicated individuals a *lot* of man-hours to suss out the details.

[trashy]

Just for kicks, I'd like to throw in my .02 on this, but mainly in the form of background, big-picture thoughts.

 

First, I was raised fundamentalist. Books like Hal Lindsey's "The Late, Great Planet Earth" were very popular in our church circles. The rapture was (and still is) always imminent. Apocalypse was always around the corner. Every news item was scrutinized for prophetic fulfillment potential. 

 

In some ways, even though I didn't realize it until recently, my brain is still conditioned to look for apocalypse, even long after having escaped xtianity. Climate change fit that bill nicely, and I was quite concerned about it for many years. I wavered on whether or not technology might provide a solution until a few months ago when I read a couple of books that convinced me that all hope was lost. I had a fairly serious existential crisis! I thought the world was doomed and that by the time my children were old that there would be no livable world left for them. I even started thinking in terms of how much time should be spent 'prepping' vs just being prepared to commit suicide when things got really bad.

 

Somehow I managed to gain some objectivity, which started with an examination of extinction (claims/projections vs actual numbers). I'll leave that for a separate discussion, but it helped me look at climate a bit differently as well. For example, where does sea level rise matter? Well at the coasts, of course. Who cares if the middle of the ocean swells unless it puts your coastline under water. So far tide gauges have shown a steady 2mm annual rise for as long as we've had tide gauges. All the fear about sea levels comes from climate models. *None* of it comes from actual measurements.

 

That was my entry into so-called climate 'skepticism.' Again, looking mostly at the big picture, you can find a lot of data from ice cores showing complete disconnection between CO2 forcing and temperature. From the long-term view, we're in a general cooling trend. The next scheduled trend would be another global glaciation. *If* we did manage to reverse that, it's probably good. Warmer is better than colder, especially now that we've spread everywhere and gained such a massive population.

 

My existential crisis has faded, my hope for humanity's future is rising. 

 

Looking forward to further discussion here.

[pantheory]

Climate change via global warming is a conclusion based upon many worldwide studies from mostly northern hemisphere data and is supported by maybe 95% of the world’s climatologists. Of this majority most also agree that man-made global warming is not a small part of the whole. Maybe another 2-3 percent of climatologists are undecided, and roughly 1-2 percent now believe in impending global cooling. Some well-respected NASA climatologists now predict that a global cooling trend will begin in the early 2020s and will last at least several decades, if not centuries or Millennia.

https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-extremely-low-sunspot-counts-indicate-global-cooling-onset/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/30214-nasa-sees-climate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity

https://skepticalscience.com/future-global-cooling.htm

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/#3d3309fb4dcf

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3022136/china-scientists-warn-global-cooling-trick-natures-sleeve

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000173

https://www.whoi.edu/know-your-ocean/ocean-topics/climate-ocean/abrupt-climate-change/are-we-on-the-brink-of-a-new-little-ice-age/

https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

https://cornwallalliance.org/2019/03/forget-warming-here-comes-cooling-scientists-announce-little-ice-age-in-coming-decades/

https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/10/28/russian-scientist-the-new-little-ice-age-has-started/

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-proof-that-a-new-ice-age-has-already-started-is-stronger-than-ever-and-we-couldnt-be-less-prepared

Although most climatologists also believe that man’s air pollution is a big contributor to global warming,  there is a minority of scientists that through studies have asserted that man's air pollution creates global cooling. Still others predict that man's air pollution will be an offset to global warming and that world climates could remain more constant because of it.

https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/01/28/manmade-pollutants-now-blamed-for-global-cooling

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190122104611.htm

https://onenewsnow.com/science-tech/2018/01/28/manmade-pollutants-now-blamed-for-global-cooling

https://e360.yale.edu/features/air-pollutions-upside-a-brake-on-global-warming

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaning-up-air-pollution-may-strengthen-global-warming/

https://www.fromthegrapevine.com/nature/climate-change-global-warming-aerosols-clouds-air-pollution

If you believe that global warming is real and that mankind is a big contributor to it then you agree with about 95% of the world's climatologists.  But If you believe that man-made global warming is not real or certain then there’s a lot of evidence and studies which also support this position as seen in the above links.

 

 

 

[Jane]

Reply to pantheory: 

 

Sorry , I am not too busy to look at all those links, but I am pretty sure the links won't contain any actual data.  Plus, anyone can put anything online.  Climatologists are not legitimate scientists in my opinion anyway.  They get paid to find something wrong with the climate.  Think about it, of course they are going to say there will be some disaster regarding climate, their income depends on it!!  

And American universities are just an extension of the government.   Besides, all they can do it use someone else's data to produce whatever information they want.

 

I wonder how many of these people that produced the links you sent actually ever took a real class in Air Pollution. I have.  You?  

 

So no, just because enough people believe a lie, it's still a lie ( or at least disinformation).  Um...how many people on this planet believe in God?  Enough said....

 

You want to prove it to me, send me some real data .  I keep repeating myself...sorry but it is what it comes down to.  

 

 

This comment is for everyone:  we have gone back to selling at the market, I am walking around again ( with a cast still on, but better) and we are expecting some visitors in the next few weeks so I will be really busy and don't have much time to post on here.   I am not ignoring anyone, and I have not run out of things to say, just no time.   I will try to catch up eventually

 

 

 

[Jane]

"Somehow I managed to gain some objectivity, which started with an examination of extinction (claims/projections vs actual numbers). I'll leave that for a separate discussion, but it helped me look at climate a bit differently as well. For example, where does sea level rise matter? Well at the coasts, of course. Who cares if the middle of the ocean swells unless it puts your coastline under water. So far tide gauges have shown a steady 2mm annual rise for as long as we've had tide gauges. All the fear about sea levels comes from climate models. *None* of it comes from actual measurements."

 

Sorry quotes not working again

 

Good comments and it shows what sort of hypocrites the church of global warming believers are in many cases. I just read somewhere ( I will look for the link if someone really wants it) that Al Gore just bought some millions of $ ocean front property.  Obviously , if he expected the oceans to rise anytime soon, he would not have done that. Never mind the HUGE carbon footprint ( I can't imagine running A/C for something that size) a huge mansion requires.    These people are just liars. 

 

Even if all the ice on the planet melted, it would not increase the ocean level by much.    Remember that stupid movie Waterworld?  It's FICTION, not possible in realty.  But the sort of idiotic thing people are worried about.    Land does go underwater, but usually because erosion removes it from one place, but then deposits it in another.   Perfectly normal and why constantly have to dredge and put sand back at certain beaches.  

Besides I don't think people should be allowed to build right next to the beach anyway.   It spoils the beach, and make everyone's insurance go up

 

 

 

[Jane]

 

"I did notice that. So far you case largely seems to be that we can't trust any data sources from anywhere in the world making the entire science rather useless. Correct?"

 

YES, pretty much.   I don't think there is ANY reliable and verifiable data on this entire planet that shows A: the temperature is going up any place  and B: the temperature is going up because humans put to much CO2 in the atmosphere.     And no, I also doubt any reliable data exists for increase of CO2 , but I do believe it is increasing because it should.   I don't argue that humanity is causing CO2 to increase.  More people, more CO2, it's sort of obvious.   

 

 

 

[Jane]

 

 

 

 

HERE is something that is GOING to affect the weather for sure, at least some areas. Might have cooling on the earth until the ash goes away! 

 

And yes, this also obviously increasing CO2.   

 

[Joshpantera]

This thread was buried several pages back in the archives. I'll resurrect it here: 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like my vote is for scientific fact, but with a side order of political fiction diverging from the scientific facts....

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, Jane said:

Reply to pantheory: 

 

Sorry , I am not too busy to look at all those links, but I am pretty sure the links won't contain any actual data.  Plus, anyone can put anything online.  Climatologists are not legitimate scientists in my opinion anyway.  They get paid to find something wrong with the climate.  Think about it, of course they are going to say there will be some disaster regarding climate, their income depends on it!!  

And American universities are just an extension of the government.   Besides, all they can do it use someone else's data to produce whatever information they want.

 

I wonder how many of these people that produced the links you sent actually ever took a real class in Air Pollution. I have.  You?  

 

So no, just because enough people believe a lie, it's still a lie ( or at least disinformation).  Um...how many people on this planet believe in God?  Enough said....

 

You want to prove it to me, send me some real data .  I keep repeating myself...sorry but it is what it comes down to.  

 

 

This comment is for everyone:  we have gone back to selling at the market, I am walking around again ( with a cast still on, but better) and we are expecting some visitors in the next few weeks so I will be really busy and don't have much time to post on here.   I am not ignoring anyone, and I have not run out of things to say, just no time.   I will try to catch up eventually

 

 

 

 

Jane, you may have misunderstood the links and related data that I posted.

 

Almost all of them are contrary to the man-made global warming proposal. I didn't post anything supporting man-made global warming because there are maybe ten times as many of those studies and links, the conclusions of which most all are familiar with. Most of the links I posted question whether man-made global warming is real, and some instead propose global cooling for many decades to come. These contrary studies are generally unknown by the general public.. Read some of these links. I think you will find that some, many, or most of them are very interesting and scientifically based, and some have supporting data from the studies themselves.

 

And yes, I believe much of what you have said in your postings has validity i.e. that man-made global warming is not certain. A person with your beliefs should read all of these links, and even look for other studies to better explain and provide data to support your position if you wish.

[Jane]

Pantheory , sorry I misunderstood your post and didn't really look at the links ( I clicked on a few and couldn't get the open, we have crappy internet) 

Yes, I do believe there could be global cooling.  If there is such as thing as ice ages , you would assume there has to be. 

 

Ash from volcanoes can block the sun and cause cooling. I wonder how cold this winter is going to be with all these volcanoes going off this year. 

Cooling would be worse for humanity than warming.  Places like Canada and Northern Europe would no longer be able to grow food because it would be too cold.  So many people worry about warming, when it is cooling they really should worry about.  

 

I personally believe climate changes because the earth axis sort of wobbles, and the sun puts out different amounts of energy  , and the poles shift.