# Global Warming, where is it?



## Camper6 (Oct 27, 2017)

This is what I woke up to this morning.  I haven't seen snow before Halloween since I was trick and treating in 1940. Yes I'm that old.


----------



## Smiling Jane (Oct 27, 2017)

Here's some global warming for you.

https://weather.com/science/environ...otos-climate-change-global-warming-20140820-0


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 27, 2017)

Global warming doesn't result in the earth becoming a desert. Warming refers to temperatures of the ocean's surface. When ocean temps rise, the under currents shift. That causes shifts in atmospheric pressure, and changes in the weather; unexpected snowfall, ice storms, hurricanes, heat waves, etc.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 27, 2017)

I don't think it pertains to the ocean's temperature only.

It's global.  Meaning the entire earth.  I just can't see anything to get excited about.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 27, 2017)

We had a little dusting of snow yesterday too Camper, and temps in the 30s, last night in the 20s.  Second touch of snow so far this year, there was some early in October.  I've seen snow on and before Halloween over the years.  I'm in Colorado, I'm surprised you don't see more snow in October in Canada, I always think of Canada as colder and more snowy.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 27, 2017)

Cap'nSacto said:


> Global warming doesn't result in the earth becoming a desert. Warming refers to temperatures of the ocean's surface. When ocean temps rise, the under currents shift. That causes shifts in atmospheric pressure, and changes in the weather; unexpected snowfall, ice storms, hurricanes, heat waves, etc.


No, that's not what the "experts" said.  There was to be a 1.8° C. rise per year in ambient air temperature, worldwide average.  It didn't happen.  That's why no one speaks of global warming anymore.  The proponents of the theory have now switched to the rather nebulous term of _climate change. _ The latter is a regular phenomenon.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 27, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> No, that's not what the "experts" said.  There was to be a 1.8° C. rise per year in ambient air temperature, worldwide average.  It didn't happen.  That's why no one speaks of global warming anymore.  The proponents of the theory have now switched to the rather nebulous term of _climate change. _ The latter is a regular phenomenon.



I wasn't quoting any "experts". I wrote down some facts.


----------



## chic (Oct 28, 2017)

It's been in the sixties, 70's and even eighties all month here so far, so yeah that it pretty warm for this area. I had the AC for the past couple of days and needed it too; we were having monsoon like rain for days and the air was like warm soup, hard to breathe without ac.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 28, 2017)

chic said:


> It's been in the sixties, 70's and even eighties all month here so far, so yeah that it pretty warm for this area. I had the AC for the past couple of days and needed it too; we were having monsoon like rain for days and the air was like warm soup, hard to breathe without ac.



How far out of the norm is that historically where you live?


----------



## DaveA (Oct 28, 2017)

Science has little to do with global warming and/or climate change.  It depends more on the people who really understand the subject, news broadcasters.   I had some concerns about the possibility that there might be a gradual change taking place but I switched from  CNN to Fox News and am now greatly relieved.  I'm being assured on a daily basis that there's no need to worry so I'm now able to sit back and relax - - -crisis over!!!


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 28, 2017)

DaveA said:


> Science has little to do with global warming and/or climate change.  It depends more on the people who really understand the subject, news broadcasters.   I had some concerns about the possibility that there might be a gradual change taking place but I switched from  CNN to Fox News and am now greatly relieved.  I'm being assured on a daily basis that there's no need to worry so I'm now able to sit back and relax - - -crisis over!!!



That's funny.  Thanks.  But here in Canada they have gone so far as to impose a carbon tax.  Once the government gets involved and starts collecting taxes I know it's a scam.


----------



## chic (Oct 28, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> How far out of the norm is that historically where you live?



Quite a bit. Last Oct. was the fourth warmest on record. Today was 70 degrees. people were wearing shorts, tees and sandals. If the weather continues this warm for the next few days it will become a record breaking warm month for us. First time in recorded weather history. So it does look real where I am. Personally, I enjoy the warmth.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 28, 2017)

Every year, the global average temperatures seem to be rising by a fraction of a degree.  2015, and 2016 were the warmest years in the past 100+, and 2017 is on track to set a new record.  None of us will live long enough to see any drastic effects if this trend continues....but those living 100 or 200 years from now may be in real trouble if this trend continues....especially if they live near the oceans, currently just a few feet above sea level.  

Between unchecked overpopulation and a warming climate, future generations are going to have some really miserable problems to cope with.  Places like Canada, Alaska, and Siberia may see massive migrations a century from now, especially when all the major population centers along the Gulf and East coasts are being flooded by the rising oceans, and untold millions of people are forced to abandon those regions.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 28, 2017)

Well right where I am sitting now was a glacier that melted and helped carve Lake Superior. The Earth has been warming for centuries.  Parts of the Earth have become deserts. There's nothing you can do about it. Tropical forests and dinosaurs. Nothing is static in Nature. Eventually the Earth will become a cinder because our sun will expand.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 29, 2017)

Camper, we've finally gotten some nice, crisp fall weather, in the last week of October!!!  It's been in the 80's, often close to 90, up to now. Are you seriously doubting that something very weird is taking place with the weather?


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 29, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Camper, we've finally gotten some nice, crisp fall weather, in the last week of October!!!  It's been in the 80's, often close to 90, up to now. Are you seriously doubting that something very weird is taking place with the weather?



No.  I don't think  that's weird at all.  I would love to have some weather in the 80's and 90's.  I just love warm weather.  Yes I seriously am doubting that the temperature of the world is increasing at a rate that was any different than what it was in the past. Not that I can see anyway.

We have two seasons here.  Winter and construction.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 29, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Yes I seriously am doubting that the temperature of the world is increasing at a rate that was any different than what it was in the past.



There are numerous sites on the Web that show the changes in the global climate.  Here is perhaps one of the best ones....From NASA, showing the rise in temperatures from 1884 to 2016.  Note the accelerating rise from 1980...

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Judging this issue, simply from your local perspective, is not going to give you an accurate assessment.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 29, 2017)

Don M. said:


> There are numerous sites on the Web that show the changes in the global climate.  Here is perhaps one of the best ones....From NASA, showing the rise in temperatures from 1884 to 2016.  Note the accelerating rise from 1980...
> 
> https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
> 
> Judging this issue, simply from your local perspective, is not going to give you an accurate assessment.



I just love these charts. If they would adjust the axis it would be a smooth line.

From 2000 to 2017 it's .5 degrees.  Well within the norm.

Let me give you a tip. Don't trust charts.  You can make them look better or worse than whatever is the actual data.

Global warmists tend to make the charts look dramatic.

Just tell me the figures without the charts.  How much of an increase in the last 100 years.  Is it out of the norm or right on?

1880 to 2020.  A difference of .5 degrees.  I don't care about the rate. I care about the results to date.  The rate is a hype as something we have to worry about.  

NASA should be ashamed of themselves.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 29, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I just love these charts. If they would adjust the axis it would be a smooth line.
> 
> From 2000 to 2017 it's .5 degrees.  Well within the norm.
> 
> ...



I agree. After a warning shot, they are quite willing to trade integrity for continued funding.


----------



## BobF (Oct 29, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I just love these charts. If they would adjust the axis it would be a smooth line.
> 
> From 2000 to 2017 it's .5 degrees.  Well within the norm.
> 
> ...



A dozen or so years back there was a lot of push from the global warmers to make it more important and get governments to start pushing money toward the concerned ones to get some better ideas.

The UN weather folks were not interested then, nor was Australia, or Japan, or USA and plenty of others also stood aside and offered no support for global warming and its long list of things to do or not do.   Now we had a new President elected in the US and he was one of those global warming folks.   So soon the UN found a different person for the UN that loved global warming.   Soon Australia, Japan, and others decided to join in the now wining bunch of global warmers.   Still waiting for the charts to begin to show some real signs of global warming.   It has to be something that can really cause hardship for people.   Gaining more mild climate territories will allow the farming areas to expand and that means all people and animals will have a better time of eating and living better.

There are some things from this global warming movement that will be good for all, but hardly a difference in our winter temps.   Better care for the planet by not just trashing the earth and oceans with our wast products is a good deal for all.   I am not sure right now if our current government is going to spend much time on global warming, but he certainly does seem to be ready to make sure folks who have needs will get taken care of. and those not willing to work may have a harder time getting taken care of.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 29, 2017)

Waste management has improved considerably from what I remember.


----------



## Warrigal (Oct 29, 2017)

> Still waiting for the charts to begin to show some real signs of global warming.   It has to be something that can really cause hardship for people.   Gaining more mild climate territories will allow the farming areas to expand and that means all people and animals will have a better time of eating and living better.



How about the ten hottest annual mean temperatures have all happened this century?

How about the fire seasons in both hemispheres stretching out by starting earlier and finishing later so that there is now overlap between them that did not happen before? Australia and America used to share assets and manpower to fight wild fires but now these are likely to  be needed at the same time in both countries.

How about the increasing frequency of super cells that are of hitherto unprecedented diameter that are causing devastation that requires massive investment by taxpayers to rebuild whole electricity systems, dams, levies and private property?

Then there is the effect on fisheries if the Great Barrier Reef dies. This ecosystem is the nursery of species and when it dies the fish stocks will be severely reduced. Those who can afford it will still eat fish but poor countries that rely heavily on the sea for sustenance will have to find other forms of protein. There will always be seaweed. Coral bleaching is occurring with alarming frequency lately - like every year. Not new, but happening annually now.

I could go on but if the data collected all around the world does not shout out a warning then neither will these signs of a trend that will be very costly to deal with for the developed world and which will force the world's poor to commence a new period of mass migration which is how humans have traditionally responded to strong periods of climate change.

 Think of the impact of this years California wildfires, while on the other side of the country three intense hurricanes were wrecking whole cities.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech...map-how-deadly-wildfires-spreading/759038001/

Note that these fires cause deaths, loss of property and livelihood, dangerous air quality away from the fires and loss of animals, orchards and crops. Yes fires have always done this but when they occur more frequently with stronger winds driving them we begin to see the folly of not trying to limit human impact on the atmosphere.


----------



## AZ Jim (Oct 29, 2017)

i won't even make an attempt at arguing the issue.  When almost all the worlds scientists say we have a problem that will ultimately result in a real problem for all on earth, I believe them, not the amateur deniers.


----------



## Lara (Oct 29, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> How about the fire seasons in both hemispheres stretching out by starting earlier and finishing later so that there is now overlap between them that did not happen before? Australia and America used to share assets and manpower to fight wild fires but now these are likely to  be needed at the same time in both countries.
> 
> Note that these fires cause deaths, loss of property and livelihood, dangerous air quality away from the fires and loss of animals, orchards and crops. Yes fires have always done this but when they occur more frequently with stronger winds driving them we begin to see the folly of not trying to limit human impact on the atmosphere.


The *NY Times* says most of the fires in California recently have been caused by humans. Some by downed power lines from winds. Also, the number of fires is sketchy because when a fire is close enough to ignite another fire they sometimes count them separately:

"Among the thousands of wildfires recorded in California in recent years,* most have been caused by human activity:* sparks from rocks sliced by lawn mower blades; children playing with fire; arson; fireworks; welding torches; even satanic rituals." 

“If there are high velocity winds, there’s every reason to suspect that power lines are a source,” said Jon E. Keeley, a fire expert with the United States Geological Survey in California. “We have many documented cases of power lines igniting fires during these high wind events."

"In the case of this month’s fires, investigators are treating the 17 suspected ignition points separately. But many of the fires merged and it remains possible that embers from one fire could have started what are currently being classified as separate fires."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/us/california-wildfires-investigation.html

I also read that a* transformer caused one* recently in CA and the power company was too understaffed to respond appropriately. Authorities caught one of the arsons that started the fire recently in Northern CA. The reason it spread so quickly was no heat but rather wind.


----------



## Cap'nSacto (Oct 29, 2017)

AZ Jim said:


> i won't even make an attempt at arguing the issue.  When almost all the worlds scientists say we have a problem that will ultimately result in a real problem for all on earth, I believe them, not the amateur deniers.



I don't count myself among deniers. The climate is changing. I may have missed a post or two; I didn't see any that deny it. 

My point (earlier) was that increased temperature of the ocean's surfaces (which total 71% of the surface of the earth, Camper) effects major ocean currents, bringing to land masses record snowfalls as well as record high temperatures.


----------



## Don M. (Oct 29, 2017)

BobF said:


> Still waiting for the charts to begin to show some real signs of global warming.   It has to be something that can really cause hardship for people.   Gaining more mild climate territories will allow the farming areas to expand and that means all people and animals will have a better time of eating and living better.



I've seen several "charts" regarding global warming....from many different sources, and the All show a gradual warming of the planet.  They can't All be wrong.  With regard to expanding areas of farming....yes, some of the more Northern areas may get mild enough to grow crops, but that will probably be offset by Southern areas becoming too hot and dry to continue productive agriculture.  Then, there is the problem of vast amounts of Methane gas locked into these Northern lands...Canada, Alaska, and especially Siberia...from frozen rotted vegetation.  If these areas begin to melt sufficiently to begin releasing that Methane, it will make use of fossil fuels seem paltry by comparison.  Methane is far more effective than CO2 in trapping the atmospheric heat, which would send the warming up by substantial margins.  There is already a lot of concern about the amount of Methane being released by "cow farts", and millions of tons of that gas frozen in the northern tundra's and the depths of the oceans.  

However, our generation has little to fear from changes in the climate...we will all be long gone by the time it becomes a major issue....but if you have grandkids, and beyond, they are going to live in a far different world than we do.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 29, 2017)

Lara said:


> The *NY Times* says most of the fires in California recently have been caused by humans. Some by downed power lines from winds. Also, the number of fires is sketchy because when a fire is close enough to ignite another fire they sometimes count them separately:
> 
> "Among the thousands of wildfires recorded in California in recent years,* most have been caused by human activity:* sparks from rocks sliced by lawn mower blades; children playing with fire; arson; fireworks; welding torches; even satanic rituals."
> 
> ...



Interesting Lara, here's an article that mentions the fires can't be blamed solely on weather events, it also overpopulation and poor planning in these areas. So that may be one factor that might be fueling these wildfires.  More here.



> As these accounts suggest, threatening wildfires are frequently  portrayed as a byproduct of warming weather, stubborn high-pressure  zones and dry western landscapes. But what about the institutions,  reckless policies and billions of dollars worth of financial incentives  that help produce dense human settlements and immense social risks on  these landscapes?
> 
> Typically absent from the discussion are the powerful social and  economic forces that turn historically active fire regimes into a string  of deadly and costly wildfire disasters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lara (Oct 30, 2017)

SeaBreeze said:
			
		

> _The conditions leading to the Northern California Wine Country and Oakland/Berkeley Hills fire disasters were neither unlucky nor unpreventable.__And such large fire disasters, while undesirable, should never be viewed as unthinkable. The truth is, we knew these fires were possible and that there were inherent dangers when these communities were built. _
> 
> _How did we know? The historically active fire regime in California and across the American West stands as a stark and foreboding reminder of these perilous landscapes. __And yet, despite fully comprehending these immense fire risks, cities have continued to plan and extend human settlements further into already fire-prone areas. And this is on the heels, and sometimes coinciding with, many decades of intentional fire suppression policies which enabled fuel build-up across the Western United States. _
> 
> _As I argue in “Flame and Fortune in the American West”, we tend to ignore these seemingly obvious risks because suburban landscapes are decidedly lucrative landscapes. These are areas that generate high levels of profit and revenue for interested parties near and far. This includes landholders, property developers, members of the construction industry, and city and county property tax offices, to name but a few._


_
Thank you for these extra reasons for the recent California fires. It's __unconscionable that developers, land investors, and the city are partially responsible for 42 deaths and vast destruction due to their desire to generate high profit and revenue for domestic and foreign investors in known high risk areas. Sad._


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

Cap'nSacto said:


> I don't count myself among deniers. The climate is changing. I may have missed a post or two; I didn't see any that deny it.
> 
> My point (earlier) was that increased temperature of the ocean's surfaces (which total 71% of the surface of the earth, Camper) effects major ocean currents, bringing to land masses record snowfalls as well as record high temperatures.



The increase in temperatures of the earth and of the oceans is within the norms.

Here's the thing. Humans are blamed. This has been happening without any human intervention for centuries.

As for believing scientists? Remember the cigarette advertisements?

No one can predict the future based on computer models.

Question. Oceans warming up. This is the claim when temperatures fail to meet the predictions. O.K. Where did the heat go before and how much have they warmed up.

They are getting record lobster harvests in northeastern United States.

If we could extend the growing season it would be a good thing.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> How about the ten hottest annual mean temperatures have all happened this century?
> 
> How about the fire seasons in both hemispheres stretching out by starting earlier and finishing later so that there is now overlap between them that did not happen before? Australia and America used to share assets and manpower to fight wild fires but now these are likely to  be needed at the same time in both countries.
> 
> ...



Tell me how all this has impacted your lifestyle other than needless worry?


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

California has had wildfires for centuries. There's nothing to stop the winds. It's desert country.


----------



## Trade (Oct 30, 2017)

Not everybody believes in man made global warming. Just the smart ones.


----------



## Lara (Oct 30, 2017)

Trade said:


> Not everybody believes in man made global warming. Just the smart ones.


So you're sayin' you don't believe in global warming? :grin:


----------



## Don M. (Oct 30, 2017)

Lara said:


> So you're sayin' you don't believe in global warming? :grin:



The "arguments" presented by those who deny Climate Change remind me of the old saying...."you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

Don M. said:


> The "arguments" presented by those who deny Climate Change remind me of the old saying...."you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".



You have it backwards. I want global warming and can't get it. That was my point.Where the heck is it?


----------



## Don M. (Oct 30, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> You have it backwards. I want global warming and can't get it. That was my point.Where the heck is it?


 
The changes taking place are Very subtle and gradual.  No one of our ages will experience any noticeable effects...especially if you live in Canada.  However, when you start thinking in terms of decades, or centuries, the probabilities of drastic effects, for future generations, become more understandable.  I'm not an experts on climatology, but I trust those who study this phenomenon, and believe their overwhelming conclusions.  It may take 100, or more years, before your locale sees a Winter with little or no snow, but that time is most likely coming.  Those who face the greatest danger are the millions who live in low lying coastal regions, as the oceans slowly rise.  Places like Florida, and much of the Gulf and Eastern seaboards will be flooded...can you imagine the social chaos that will occur when all these major cities begin to look like Atlantis???


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

> The changes taking place are Very subtle and gradual.



Allelluia. I agree.  That's the way it has been for eons. The rapid rate on the charts is the point of contention then.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 30, 2017)

Trade said:


> Not everybody believes in man made global warming. Just the smart ones.


Only the ignorant believe that _belief_ is a valid scientific term.  The culmination of scientific method is the propounding of a theory that is subject to disproof.  Belief is  contrary to scientific method.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

Don M. said:


> The changes taking place are Very subtle and gradual.  No one of our ages will experience any noticeable effects...especially if you live in Canada.  However, when you start thinking in terms of decades, or centuries, the probabilities of drastic effects, for future generations, become more understandable.  I'm not an experts on climatology, but I trust those who study this phenomenon, and believe their overwhelming conclusions.  It may take 100, or more years, before your locale sees a Winter with little or no snow, but that time is most likely coming.  Those who face the greatest danger are the millions who live in low lying coastal regions, as the oceans slowly rise.  Places like Florida, and much of the Gulf and Eastern seaboards will be flooded...can you imagine the social chaos that will occur when all these major cities begin to look like Atlantis???



You don't give humans enough credit for ingenuity. 

Huge channels like like the Panama Canal watering the deserts.


----------



## Trade (Oct 30, 2017)

Trade said:


> Not everybody believes in man made global warming. Just the smart ones.




:tongue:


----------



## Trade (Oct 30, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> Only the ignorant believe that _belief_ is a valid scientific term.  The culmination of scientific method is the propounding of a theory that is subject to disproof.  Belief is  contrary to scientific method.



:tongue:


----------



## Don M. (Oct 30, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> You don't give humans enough credit for ingenuity.



That's right...everywhere I look I see evidence of human errors and lack of concern.  By the time the people, and governments, wake up to reality, it will be too little, too late.  Between Climate Change and unchecked population growth, humans seem determined to prove the biblical predictions of Armageddon.  Personally, I don't give it much past the latter years of this century before things really start going downhill.


----------



## Lara (Oct 30, 2017)

Hurricane Irma increased it's size to 400 miles due to the incredibly warm surface ocean temps. Over 82 degrees. It may have been warmer but I don't have the final stats nor the historical stats to compare to. I just know it was an unusually warm ocean surface. There are 4 other reasons why hurricanes strengthen as well though.


----------



## Trade (Oct 30, 2017)

I wonder what the denier's fall back position will be when the shit really hits the fan? 

Which it will. 

Are they still going to sy it's just part of the natural cycle of things?


----------



## Pete (Oct 30, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> This is what I woke up to this morning.  I haven't seen snow before Halloween since I was trick and treating in 1940.



This picture of Fairbanks from last winter shows the cold is definitely hanging on. However after spending several decades around the North Slope where the ground is permanently frozen we find that now it is "slowly" melting. No... not the fault of humanity but just a cycle the earth goes through.


----------



## BobF (Oct 30, 2017)

A few years back folks were watching the charts and often times they were going down each year.   We had some real global warming folks say it will warm up and give the planet a bad time.   I think they were just anticipating this warming curve.   But who knows if they were right or not.    Maybe now, in the midst of this warming spell we might one day see it turn into a short term or beginning of a colder spell which will then cause all the global warmers to want more of the warmth to melt the new piles of ice and snow.   Look back over temp changes and some not so long go warmer and others not so hot come and go.    Take all the politics out of it and we have changing climate on this earth that none of us seem to be able to predict or change.   How long has it been to change by a half degree?    Any one found a guarantee that it will never change again?

Burning coal will destroy the world.   There are articles about coal burning and some fires have been said to be thousands of years old.   China being one like that and other areas like Germany, or US, or anywhere that coal is natural, can and will catch fire and continue to burn for many years, even when fought by the peoples that don't like the smokes.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

The theory is that burning fossil fuels causes the greenhouse effect that causes global warming.

Therefore if that's true we are doomed because we need vehicles for transportation of food and the necessities of life and personal transportation.

No one is going to give up their vehicles. Not even the ones who  support AGW including those that are posting here.

Oh by the way . There's no way to cap the thousands of volcanoes in the world but somehow the supporters say volcanoes contribute to cooling.

So far as it says in the Bible. It has not come to pass.


----------



## Steve LS (Oct 30, 2017)

Folks we've been told the science is settled.
The conversation is over.

There was a study and a paper was written and here it is.

I think all you have to do is read the abstract to understand how absurd it is, and here's the abstract.

*Abstract:
 We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewedscientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climatechange’ or ‘global warming’. 

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsedAGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. 

Among abstracts expressinga position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. 
In a secondphase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. 
Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage ofself-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). 
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW,97.2% endorsed the consensus. 
For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsementsamong papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. 
Our analysis indicates thatthe number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Keywords: scientific consensus, anthropogenic global warming, peer-review, global climate change,Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

*So the truth is *32.6%* of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’ believe that man is the main made.

But we've moved from global warming to climate change.

Climate Change is obviously real.
The climate is always changing.
We put stuff into the air that is harmful, and we're working on reducing it.

The notion that we are the main contributor though is *nonsense*.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 30, 2017)

> We put stuff into the air that is harmful, and we're working on reducing it.



There has been a big change in waste management and pollution since I was a boy.

I can believe man is a contributor but I cannot believe man is the cause.


----------



## Big Horn (Oct 30, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> There has been a big change in waste management and pollution since I was a boy.
> 
> I can believe man is a contributor but I cannot believe man is the cause.


I am presently sitting at a place that was once underwater in a tropical sea.  A few hours from me is the Blue Forest, once a place of spectacular palms.  The trees are still there, but they're a few feet underground and fossilized.  The face and weather of this inconsequential planet will continue to change with or without the presence of one insignificant but terribly arrogant species.


----------



## Camper6 (Oct 31, 2017)

Big Horn said:


> I am presently sitting at a place that was once underwater in a tropical sea.  A few hours from me is the Blue Forest, once a place of spectacular palms.  The trees are still there, but they're a few feet underground and fossilized.  The face and weather of this inconsequential planet will continue to change with or without the presence of one insignificant but terribly arrogant species.




*Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests *



Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...eat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 1, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Tell me how all this has impacted your lifestyle other than needless worry?



I am not that self centred to think that this is all about me. I agree with Don M above. It is about the future and the impact on future generations and future societies. 

As for who started the California fires, it doesn't matter one little bit. A lightning strike, a cigarette butt or a delinquent teenager or disturbed pyromaniac - that is not the issue. The issue is how the fire behaves, how fast it takes off, how violent the wind is and how dry the fuel is. These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 1, 2017)

My comments in blue.




Camper6 said:


> The theory is that burning fossil fuels causes the greenhouse effect that causes global warming.
> Not exactly. It has been demonstrated that certain gases  have the property of holding radiant energy in certain layers of the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how they get there - burning fossil fuels, natural wild fires, decaying garbage, farting cows and melting frozen soils containing ancient vegetation all contribute. Now which of these are increasing over time and which ones could we do anything about? Also, natural cycles have a capacity to remove greenhouse gases over time. Carbon dioxide is removed by plants - all plants - but particularly forests and extensive grasslands. Are we increasing or decreasing the area of forests and grazing lands on a global scale or are we cutting and burning the rainforests to plant coffee and chocolate. Is grain fed beef taking over from range fed beef? Is the most tender steak that you can eat worth risking the future of the planet?
> 
> There is no single, simple fix. A whole lot of areas need looking at including architecture designed to minimise heating/cooling energy consumption, the way we design and use our cars and public transport and the sources of power that we exploit. Agriculture will be impacted the most.
> ...


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> I am not that self centred to think that this is all about me. I agree with Don M above. It is about the future and the impact on future generations and future societies.
> 
> As for who started the California fires, it doesn't matter one little bit. A lightning strike, a cigarette butt or a delinquent teenager or disturbed pyromaniac - that is not the issue. The issue is how the fire behaves, how fast it takes off, how violent the wind is and how dry the fuel is. These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now.



Sorry Warrigal.  That's a cop out.  The thread started out with all about me and where the heck is it. 

If it hasn't impacted you at all after all this time then it means it's nothing to worry about.  Predicting the future is like believing in fortune tellers.

Did you read my link? They got their modelling wrong.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

> So far as it says in the Bible. It has not come to pass.
> Book, chapter and verse please.



I should know better than to argue with a school teacher.  Because they have never heard it means it doesn't exist?

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah 7:7


Isaiah 7:7
KJ21
thus saith the Lord God: It shall not stand, *neither shall it come to pass.*
ASV
thus saith the Lord Jehovah, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
AMP
for this is what the Lord God says, “It shall not stand nor shall it happen.
AMPC
Thus says the Lord God: It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
BRG
Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
CSB
This is what the Lord God says: It will not happen; it will not occur.
CEB
But the Lord God says: It won’t happen; it won’t take place.
CJB
“‘This is what Adonai Elohim says: “It won’t occur, it won’t happen.
CEV
I, the Lord, promise that this will never happen.
DARBY
*thus saith the Lord Jehovah: It shall not stand, nor come to pass*;
DRA
Thus saith the Lord God: It shall not stand, and this shall not be.
ERV
But the Lord God says, “Their plan will not succeed. It will not happen
ESV
thus says the Lord God: “‘It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
ESVUK
thus says the Lord God: “‘It shall not stand, and it shall not come to pass.
EXB
But I, the Lord God, say, “‘·Their plan will not succeed [L It will not stand]; it will not happen,
GNV
Thus saith the Lord God, It shall not stand, neither shall it be.
GW
This is what the Almighty Lord says: It won’t take place; it won’t happen.
GNT
“But I, the Lord, declare that this will never happen.
HCSB
This is what the Lord God says: It will not happen; it will not occur.
ICB
But I, the Lord God, say, Their plan will not succeed. It will not happen.
ISV
‘But this is what the Lord God has to say: “‘It won’t take place. It won’t ever happen.
JUB
Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall


----------



## NancyNGA (Nov 1, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> I am not that self centred to think that this is all about me. I agree with Don M above. It is about the future and the impact on future generations and future societies.
> 
> *As for who started the California fires, it doesn't matter one little bit.* A lightning strike, a cigarette butt or a delinquent teenager or disturbed pyromaniac - that is not the issue. The issue is how the fire behaves, how fast it takes off, how violent the wind is and how dry the fuel is. These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit it to what we have now.



Exactly. Just something brought in that unintentionally distracts from the real issue.  The length of the season when the forests are most at risk has been extended too.  I think someone already mentioned this.  Good post, Warri.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 1, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> I should know better than to argue with a school teacher.  Because they have never heard it means it doesn't exist?
> 
> https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Isaiah 7:7
> 
> ...



Thanks but one link would have been sufficient since each one is really just the one verse.

I did take the time to look it up and place it into context.
It does not seem to be at all relevant to global warming when not taken out of context.



> Isaiah 7:1-20New International Version (NIV)*The Sign of Immanuel*
> 
> 7 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
> [SUP]2 [/SUP]Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[SUP][a][/SUP] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
> ...


----------



## Sunny (Nov 1, 2017)

Camper, this was in today's paper.  It answers the question you ask as the title of this thread.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/cli...tially-irreversible-ways-report-warns-1769114


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Camper, this was in today's paper.  It answers the question you ask as the title of this thread.



  No it does not.  

From the link:
Hotter global temperatures are exacting a human toll. Although the  increase since 2000 may seem slight - about 0.75 degrees Fahrenheit -  the planet is not a uniform oven. Local spikes can be dramatic and  dangerous. Heat waves, defined as extreme temperatures that persist for  at least three days, are on the rise. 

You know in scientific papers the temperatures are always quoted in Celsius not Fahrenheit.  So why does this one quote F instead of C.

And that temperature is well within the norm.

As I keep telling you.  The Earth has been warming for centuries.  There's nothing you can do about it. It will continue with or without humans.

Do yourself a favor.  Check the average temperatures where you live for the last 100 years.  See how much they have increased or decreased.


----------



## Big Horn (Nov 1, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Camper, this was in today's paper.  It answers the question you ask as the title of this thread.
> 
> https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/cli...tially-irreversible-ways-report-warns-1769114


The article does not state that there was any new evidence for climate change.  The listed professions of the "researchers" suggest a political group.

"including climate scientists as well as ecologists, geographers, economists, engineers, mathematicians"

I'm an economist.  I have only the barest knowledge of physics, chemistry, and geology.  I assume that they were there for a vacation.  That's what most conferences are.  They're never held in Mumbai or Fairbanks.

This is akin to telling me that smoking will kill me even though there is no evidence that I smoke.  I don't smoke and never have.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

Sunny said:


> Camper, this was in today's paper.  It answers the question you ask as the title of this thread.



  No it does not.  

From the link:
Hotter global temperatures are exacting a human toll. Although the  increase since 2000 may seem slight - about 0.75 degrees Fahrenheit -  the planet is not a uniform oven. Local spikes can be dramatic and  dangerous. Heat waves, defined as extreme temperatures that persist for  at least three days, are on the rise. 

You know in scientific papers the temperatures are always quoted in Celsius not Fahrenheit.  So why does this one quote F instead of C. Because .75 F looks larger than .23 C.  

And that temperature is well within the norm for the century dating back to 1800.

As I keep telling you.  The Earth has been warming for centuries.  There's nothing you can do about it. It will continue with or without humans.

Do yourself a favor.  Check the average temperatures where you live for the last 100 years.  See how much they have increased or decreased.  

And I looked up the records for Maryland. In which years were the hottest months recorded in November.? 

*Warmest November Days*

             The warmest November days in Maryland are: 

Baltimore, Maryland197587.1°FBaltimore, Maryland195086.4°FPatuxent River, Maryland196885.3°FCamp Springs, Maryland195084.4°FCamp Springs, Maryland197484°F


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

> These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the  changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with  it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit  it to what we have now



No there is no proof that these factors are all made worse by global warming.  We are not seeing the changes now that are caused by global warming.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

> These factors are all made worse by global warming and we are seeing the  changes now, in our lifetimes. Our grandchildren will have to live with  it when we had the opportunity to reverse the trend, or at least limit  it to what we have now



No there is no proof that these factors are all made worse by global warming.  We are not seeing the changes now that are caused by global warming.  


https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/...chile...snow-record.../70002197Jul 16, 2017 - A bitter blast of frigid air is plunging into central _Chile_ this weekend, causing _snow_ to fall at unusually low levels and putting _records_ in jeopardy.

So shall I say that is being caused by global cooling?


----------



## Sunny (Nov 1, 2017)

The article is reporting on an article in The Lancet, the highly respected British medical journal. So you claim that the top scientists who write for this journal are really just politicians, eh?

I realize that you don't want to be troubled by the facts, Camper, since you have managed to politicize the weather... but here's just one among many articles citing scientific proof.

*http://tinyurl.com/ycw63pqv


*


----------



## Big Horn (Nov 1, 2017)

Sunny said:


> The article is reporting on an article in The Lancet, the highly respected British medical journal. So you claim that the top scientists who write for this journal are really just politicians, eh?
> 
> I realize that you don't want to be troubled by the facts, Camper, since you have managed to politicize the weather... but here's just one among many articles citing scientific proof.
> 
> ...


If something is not subject to disproof, it's not legitimate science.  That disproof may or may not exist, but a scientist accepts the fact that if it does, it must be able to be applied.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 1, 2017)

The mathematical technique for testing the truth of a proposition is to apply the null hypothesis to the data.



> For the publication, see Null Hypothesis: The Journal of Unlikely Science.
> 
> In inferential statistics, the term "*null hypothesis*" is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[SUP][1][/SUP] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there _is_ a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science; the field of statistics gives precise criteria for rejecting a null hypothesis.
> 
> The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise. In statistics, it is often denoted *H[SUB]0[/SUB]* (read “H-nought”, "H-null", "H-oh", or "H-zero").



In other words, the climate data around the world has been tested against the proposition that there is no connection between global warming and human activity. The data shows that there is only a very small probability that this is true and by extension, a very high probability that human activity since about 1900 has contributed to global warming and that this affect is accelerating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis


----------



## BobF (Nov 1, 2017)

There are charts that show warm and cool patterns that occur every so many years.   I tried to get them to copy so I could print them here, but so far failed.  This global warming thing has fail to do as predicted 15 or so years back.   Some of the charts now show the worlds climate to be in another cooling spell.   I will keep on working on this material as I think some folks really need to back off the demanding of global warming and just let the world do its thing.   That is exactly what is going to happen anyway.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

Sunny said:


> The article is reporting on an article in The Lancet, the highly respected British medical journal. So you claim that the top scientists who write for this journal are really just politicians, eh?
> 
> I realize that you don't want to be troubled by the facts, Camper, since you have managed to politicize the weather... but here's just one among many articles citing scientific proof.
> 
> ...



Do me a favor. Read your own links. Yes we had a record year. A whopping .1 degrees difference. If you can notice that you're a better man than me. It's well within the expected norm and it's probably more accurate now because of better measurement facilities.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 1, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> The mathematical technique for testing the truth of a proposition is to apply the null hypothesis to the data.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the theory alright. And I will concede that humans contribute. They always do. But can you give me a percentage of contribution assuming there are no humans on Earth.

Dont give me a story or another link. Just give me the percentage. 1 to 100 percent . 

Blaming storms on on the theory is ridiculous. Even the scientists don't believe it.

Worst hurricane in the history of the United States. Galveston Texas 1900.


----------



## Steve LS (Nov 1, 2017)

*A complete list of things caused by global warming.*

Or so they say.


----------



## BobF (Nov 2, 2017)

I had an error  in #67 and said warming when it was about really showing the beginnings of a cooling spell. 

Will try to get those charts and links to work sometime today, if I can.    Not all scientist live in politically paid for surroundings as those that came on board during our previous government here in the US.   Doubters were deliberately driven from the discussions and only global warmers have been allowed to speak or given any authority.   Not wanting to become like our US VP should not be a crime.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 2, 2017)

BobF said:


> I had an error  in #67 and said warming when it was about really showing the beginnings of a cooling spell.
> 
> Will try to get those charts and links to work sometime today, if I can.    Not all scientist live in politically paid for surroundings as those that came on board during our previous government here in the US.   Doubters were deliberately driven from the discussions and only global warmers have been allowed to speak or given any authority.   Not wanting to become like our US VP should not be a crime.



Have you tried screenshots for the graphs?


----------



## BobF (Nov 2, 2017)

I have not found the same charts I looked at last night.   I just scanned for global warming charts as I did not keep records of what I was looking at.   I will try screen shots and see what happens.   I think that is what I tried yesterday and for some reason could not capture them.   So here goes.














Well, it appears that what I did is working.   Will not know till I send.    Many years back I got tired of watching the global warming folks turn this entire issue into a political thing.   They joined ranks and totally ignore any one other than their very own boosters.   Even real true scientist get ignored if not joining into the global warming nonsense completely.

There was a group of scientist and observers that often challenged some theories and had proofs of their thinking.   Not sure if they are still around.   I hope so as we need more than just these politically correct folks to be involved in what is happening to us and why.   Done looking for today.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 2, 2017)

It bugs me that they want to collect taxes . As soon as the government does that I know it's politics and not science fueling the real reasons behind it.


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 2, 2017)

Climate science is not "rocket science", it's pretty straight forward, so much so that worldwide the overwhelming majority of scientists from all 

disciplines agree that the long term climate is permanently changing, with rising global temperatures due to the increase in 

carbon emissions, since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  Yearly seasonal fluctuations don't always reflect the long term changes.

It's too bad that 'some' politicians have seized upon climate change to use as a political football to galvanize opinion among their followers.

Our grandchildren will bear the consequences of the _denier_ efforts to obfuscate the climate issue to sabotage positive action.


----------



## Big Horn (Nov 2, 2017)

tnthomas said:


> *Climate science is not "rocket science", it's pretty straight forward, so much so that worldwide the overwhelming majority of scientists from all
> *


Rocket science makes use of nice equations that always work.  Meteorology, particularly prediction, is very problematic.  The weather forecast last night predicted a maximum of 3" of snow.  I have a foot or more.  That doesn't happen with rockets.


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 2, 2017)

You're talking about weather, it's not the same as long term climate trends.


----------



## Big Horn (Nov 2, 2017)

tnthomas said:


> You're talking about weather, it's not the same as long term climate trends.


That's right; weather is much easier to predict.


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 2, 2017)

As mentioned, the science behind climatic change is simple.  If you add  'x' number of tons of carbon 

to the atmosphere, over time(say, the last couple hundred years) the overall average global 

temperatures will rise.  This can be duplicated in the laboratory.   Records compiled over the past 

century show rising temperatures.   Much more factual information exists, here.



I'm glad that here in California there are no earthquake deniers, the state is about as prepared for the 

"big one" as they can get.   It will still be ugly though.   I hope it doesn't happen any time in the next 500 years....


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 3, 2017)

tnthomas said:


> Climate science is not "rocket science", it's pretty straight forward, so much so that worldwide the overwhelming majority of scientists from all
> 
> disciplines agree that the long term climate is permanently changing, with rising global temperatures due to the increase in
> 
> ...



Proponents of global warming would do well by stopping to sensationalize their beliefs and calling people deniers. For example graphs that are deliberately dramatized.

No one is denying anything. They are merely questioning what we don't see as predicted as a calamity.

It's gradual warming that has been going on for centuries and there is no way to stop it even if emissions were cut 100% and the economy went into the tank.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 3, 2017)

tnthomas said:


> As mentioned, the science behind climatic change is simple.  If you add  'x' number of tons of carbon
> 
> to the atmosphere, over time(say, the last couple hundred years) the overall average global
> 
> ...



Pit would have risen even if you didn't add x number of tons of carbon. There is no way to stop it. Cutting or eliminating carbon emissions won't do it.

Firm believers should dump their cars but they won't will they?

Finally who is in charge here? We see all kinds of references. Is it NASA? Is it NOAA? Is it IPCC?. 

Anyway I started this thread and appreciate the inputs. But as I said in my opening post. Where is it? I haven't seen it and I wish I could get it.


----------



## BobF (Nov 3, 2017)

If you search for global warming charts or global cooling charts you will get connected to hundreds of charts.   Any truth in them at all?    Rather wonder about them myself as charts can be so much changed just by using a slight different standard and then modifying measures and time spans.   That can be seen in some of those many charts they bring up.

Really not sure about those scientist reluctant to join in the global warming stuff.   Will go looking for them again.   They may still exist but are so terminally rejected by the other bunch that they seem to be gone.


----------



## Warrigal (Nov 3, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> That is the theory alright. And I will concede that humans contribute. They always do. But can you give me a percentage of contribution assuming there are no humans on Earth.
> 
> Dont give me a story or another link. Just give me the percentage. 1 to 100 percent .
> 
> ...



No can do. I am too busy preparing for our church market day tomorrow. In any case, there is no one number between 0 and 100 that can be supplied. It would all depend on which data set was being tested and you don't just work out an average from the different tests.

However, from the more recent statements I would infer that the number is in the range 0.95 < p < 0.99. That would be a pretty high probability that human activity is contributing to global warming.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 3, 2017)

Warrigal said:


> No can do. I am too busy preparing for our church market day tomorrow. In any case, there is no one number between 0 and 100 that can be supplied. It would all depend on which data set was being tested and you don't just work out an average from the different tests.
> 
> However, from the more recent statements I would infer that the number is in the range 0.95 < p < 0.99. That would be a pretty high probability that human activity is contributing to global warming.



Are you saying .95% or 95% is human contribution .  .95% is less than 1 percent.

You are copping out again.  There should be one number available for the Earth.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 3, 2017)

This just popped up today...it appears that the Paris Climate Accord may be little more than some "Political. Feel Good" agreement that is unlikely to accomplish anything worthwhile.  

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 3, 2017)

This is the kind of post I don't appreciate. 



> I realize that you don't want to be troubled by the facts, Camper, since  you have managed to politicize the weather... but here's just one among  many articles citing scientific proof.



I'm not troubled by the facts.  I'm troubled by the hype of the facts.


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 3, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Proponents of global warming would do well by stopping to sensationalize their beliefs and calling people deniers. For example graphs that are deliberately dramatized.
> 
> No one is denying anything. They are merely questioning what we don't see as predicted as a calamity.
> 
> It's gradual warming that has been going on for centuries and there is no way to stop it even if emissions were cut 100% and the economy went into the tank.



What is a "proponent" of global warming?   The  climate change issue was sensationalized by the folks that, for what ever their motives may be, are attempting to muddy the waters and 

create confusion.   I could say more, but then we would be stepping [yet deeper] into the political realm.

Make no mistake, you are entitled to your beliefs, and I certainly don't care what they are, nor do I wish to have any influence over said beliefs.

However, I reserve the right to speak true statements, and refute false statements made in public.


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 3, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Anyway I started this thread and appreciate the inputs. But as I said in my opening post. Where is it? I haven't seen it and I wish I could get it.



Yes, you did start this thread, but that does not give you either control nor ownership rights in the least.

I don't know exactly where you live, to have not seen any evidence of climate change.  It is everywhere, not confined to any geographic location.

I have been observing a warming trend since the early 80s, here in Southern California...well before I ever heard the terms global warming or climate change.

In Vermont I see evidence of climate change, just got back from there Tuesday.   My father-in-law has lived in Vermont for 80+ years, he mentioned the changes in climate there as well.

More and more harsh weather is predicted by climate scientists, we are seeing more devastating hurricanes and tornadoes  hitting the U.S.

I doubt that climate change is being denied by the younger generation, they will have to cope with it, our generation will fade into the past.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 3, 2017)

tnthomas said:


> Yes, you did start this thread, but that does not give you either control nor ownership rights in the least.



This type of post irritates me.  I never claimed control or ownership rights. I welcomed inputs.



> I don't know exactly where you live, to have not seen any evidence of climate change.  It is everywhere, not confined to any geographic location.



Check the right hand side of my posts.  It tells you where I live.  You obviously don't follow the thread.


> I have been observing a warming trend since the early 80s, here in Southern California...well before I ever heard the terms global warming or climate change.



Yes.  So have I.  It's supposed to get warmer.  It has been warming for 10,000 years or more but it's still within the normal limits.



> In Vermont I see evidence of climate change, just got back from there Tuesday.   My father-in-law has lived in Vermont for 80+ years, he mentioned the changes in climate there as well.



By how many degrees in the last 100 years? Where I live I tracked the temperature for the last 100 years.  Hardly any change in temperature at all.  



> More and more harsh weather is predicted by climate scientists, we are seeing more devastating hurricanes and tornadoes  hitting the U.S.



Scientists have debunked the notion that more hurricanes and tornadoes are caused by global warming. 

Florida had been on a hurricane-free winning streak. Coming into the 2016 hurricane season, Florida, had gone a record 11 years without a landfalling hurricane.

In 2016 the Atlantic hurricane season was only slightly more active than what its typical.

Accuweather has predicted a slightly less active-than-normal season, with 10 named storms, five hurricanes, and three major hurricanes.



> I doubt that climate change is being denied by the younger generation, they will have to cope with it, our generation will fade into the past.



That's your opinion.  They aren't going to give up their cars any time soon.

It is premature to conclude that human activities and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.

Source:gfdl.noaa.gov


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 3, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> This type of post irritates me.  I never claimed control or ownership rights. I welcomed inputs.
> Check the right hand side of my posts.  It tells you where I live.  You obviously don't follow the thread.
> Yes.  So have I.  It's supposed to get warmer.  It has been warming for 10,000 years or more but it's still within the normal limits.
> By how many degrees in the last 100 years? Where I live I tracked the temperature for the last 100 years.  Hardly any change in temperature at all.
> ...



My mistake, I kind of knew that it would be futile to try to refute the circular logic that climate change opponents employ, in their view .

However, you are fortunate to be able to believe what you wish.   Reality doesn't change because nobody "believes in" it.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 3, 2017)

tnthomas said:


> My mistake, I kind of knew that it would be futile to try to refute the circular logic that climate change opponents employ, in their view .
> 
> However, you are fortunate to be able to believe what you wish.   Reality doesn't change because nobody "believes in" it.



When your points are weak comment on the poster instead of the topic. I don't oppose climate change. My thrust is on the level that humans are the responsible force behind it.


----------



## hearlady (Nov 3, 2017)

I wonder if Mother Nature is smiling.........oh you silly humans......


----------



## tnthomas (Nov 3, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> When your points are weak comment on the poster instead of the topic. I don't oppose climate change. My thrust is on the level that humans are the responsible force behind it.



Sorry, nice try but that won't work.      As I said, you are fortunate to be able to think what pleases you.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 3, 2017)

tnthomas said:


> Sorry, nice try but that won't work.      As I said, you are fortunate to be able to think what pleases you.



That's not all you said and I'm saying good night .


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Nov 4, 2017)

A few "FACTS".
In my last job I was a "stone-age" demonstrator, showing how our ancestors survived the ever changing climate they lived in. To be able to present effectively I studied the subject and present some of my findings here.
The most significant of the changes our ancestors had to face were of course the Ice Ages or Glacial periods. Over the last 500,000 years there have been five major ice ages, the last one ended just 10,000 years ago. Between the ice ages there were inter glacial or warming periods, which is where we are at this moment of time. 
If you look at the graph below, present time is on the right, you can see how the earths temperature has changed over time and just how much it does - a total of just 9ºC from ice to warm!
Looking at the warming periods, the last major one was around 125,000 years ago and one certainly can't blame man and carbon emissions for that, they didn't have anything that could produce sufficient CO2 to have any effect.
From this I have concluded that the warming/cooling cycles are a natural phenomena but that with the advent of "civilised" man we are not helping the situation. Our contribution will probably raise the final temperature by just 1º, doesn't sound much but will have a significant impact on the world.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 4, 2017)

There have certainly been many warming and cooling cycles on Earth...BUT in the past there weren't billions of people on the planet.  150,000 years ago, there might have been a million human ancestors on the globe, and they just folded their tents, grabbed their spears, and migrated North or South, as weather dictated.  Today, we have 7+ billion....10 to 12 billion by the end of this century, and 10's of trillions of dollars worth of cities and infrastructure that could be destroyed by rising oceans.  If Greenland's ice melted, it would raise the oceans by 20 feet...if Antarctica melted, that number would be closer to 200 ft.  Given that 1/3rd of our population lives in areas that could face flooding under such conditions, can you imagine the chaos and upheaval that would occur if/when the oceans rise more than just a few feet???   Such conditions would largely spell the end of life as we know it.  

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 4, 2017)

Several posts have been removed due to political content. https://www.seniorforums.com/showthread.php/8331-NOTICE-All-Members-Please-Read


----------



## Sunny (Nov 5, 2017)

OK, here's an excerpt from yesterday's news article, with any political content removed. (Although how you can consider the title of this thread apolitical beats me.)

The first document, called the Climate Science Special Report, is a finalized report, having been peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and vetted by experts across government agencies. It was formally unveiled Friday.

“I think this report is basically the most comprehensive climate science report in the world right now,” said Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers who is an expert on sea-level rise and served as one of the report’s lead authors.

It affirms that the United States is already experiencing more extreme heat and rainfall events and more large wildfires in the West, that more than 25 coastal U.S. cities are already experiencing more flooding, and that seas could rise by between 1 and 4 feet by the year 2100, and perhaps even more than that if Antarctica proves to be unstable, as is feared. The report says that a rise of over eight feet is “physically possible” with high levels of greenhouse-gas emissions but that there’s no way right now to predict how likely it is to happen.

When it comes to rapidly escalating levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the report states, “there is no climate analog for this century at any time in at least the last 50 million years.”
Most striking, perhaps, the report warns of the unpredictable — changes that scientists cannot foresee that could involve tipping points or fast changes in the climate system. These could switch the climate into “new states that are very different from those experienced in the recent past.”


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 5, 2017)

There was a report provided by the government . If it's the same one I'm still in the process of reading it.

Has anything in the report affected you yet? 


This bother me.

"There is no climate analog for this century at any time in at least the last 50 million years"

We don't have records going back that far.

The worst hurricane in U.S. history. Galveston, Texas, 1900.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 5, 2017)

Don M. said:


> There have certainly been many warming and cooling cycles on Earth...BUT in the past there weren't billions of people on the planet.  150,000 years ago, there might have been a million human ancestors on the globe, and they just folded their tents, grabbed their spears, and migrated North or South, as weather dictated.  Today, we have 7+ billion....10 to 12 billion by the end of this century, and 10's of trillions of dollars worth of cities and infrastructure that could be destroyed by rising oceans.  If Greenland's ice melted, it would raise the oceans by 20 feet...if Antarctica melted, that number would be closer to 200 ft.  Given that 1/3rd of our population lives in areas that could face flooding under such conditions, can you imagine the chaos and upheaval that would occur if/when the oceans rise more than just a few feet???   Such conditions would largely spell the end of life as we know it.
> 
> https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/



Remember now ice melting in the ocean will not raise the level of the ocean. An ice cube melting in your glass won't raise the level. It has to be coming from land ice like it did where I now sit about 10,000 years ago.


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Nov 5, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Remember now ice melting in the ocean will not raise the level of the ocean. An ice cube melting in your glass won't raise the level. It has to be coming from land ice like it did where I now sit about 10,000 years ago.



True! The single largest ice mass we need to be really concerned about is the antarctic. Here ice melt will have a significant effect on ocean levels. I can't quite work out what effect ice melt at the Arctic will have as theoretically it is "floating".


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 5, 2017)

There is lots of sources and as I mentioned before which one is the official one.

Is it the IPCC.  That's the one I look at because it's international.

So far I have no cause for alarm because the temperature is within normal limits at 1.8 percent C.

The other thing I look at is migrations of birds.  

Where I live they track migrations.  I have yet to see a cardinal. And the  day I see those multiple bird houses in our area (I don't know the name of those birds) but they nest in huge birdhouses.  We don't get them here.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 5, 2017)

There is lots of sources and as I mentioned before which one is the official one.

Is it the IPCC.  That's the one I look at because it's international.

So far I have no cause for alarm because the temperature is within normal limits at 1.8 percent C.

The other thing I look at is migrations of birds.  

Where I live they track migrations.  I have yet to see a cardinal. And the  day I see those multiple bird houses in our area (I don't know the name of those birds) but they nest in huge birdhouses.  We don't get them here.  


I just found out from my friend.  Purple Martins.  We put up the bird houses but they don't show up.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 5, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> Remember now ice melting in the ocean will not raise the level of the ocean. An ice cube melting in your glass won't raise the level. It has to be coming from land ice like it did where I now sit about 10,000 years ago.



If you read my earlier note carefully...you will note I was referring to the land locked ice on Greenland and Antarctica.  If/when that ice begins to melt substantially, it will MOST CERTAINLY result in a major ocean rise.  There are several reliable references to "Greenland Ice Melt" on the Internet....NASA, NOAA, etc.....I urge anyone who doubts the effects of Global Warming to do some research.....keeping in mind that the effects over decades and centuries must be considered.  What happened this year, or last year is of little consequence to the overall Big Picture.


----------



## Cap'n Mike (Nov 5, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> So far I have no cause for alarm because the temperature is within normal limits at 1.8 percent C.



Umm. But are you doing anything to help stop it going any higher, I doubt it as most people think it doesn't concern them, and it doesn't, it's our future generations that are going to suffer.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 5, 2017)

Cap'n Mike said:


> Umm. But are you doing anything to help stop it going any higher, I doubt it as most people think it doesn't concern them, and it doesn't, it's our future generations that are going to suffer.



Ask yourself what can you do without collapsing the economy.  If elimination of carbon is the desired goal, then billions of cars and trucks have to go.  They burn gasoline.  A fossil fuel.  It may be an unattainable goal and we may just have to suffer the consequences or the trade off or whatever you want to call it.  

If you are a true believer in carbon causing warming and you still drive a car then you are a hypocrite.

I'm not worrying about future generations.  What did we inherit from our previous generation?


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 5, 2017)

Don M. said:


> If you read my earlier note carefully...you will note I was referring to the land locked ice on Greenland and Antarctica.  If/when that ice begins to melt substantially, it will MOST CERTAINLY result in a major ocean rise.  There are several reliable references to "Greenland Ice Melt" on the Internet....NASA, NOAA, etc.....I urge anyone who doubts the effects of Global Warming to do some research.....keeping in mind that the effects over decades and centuries must be considered.  What happened this year, or last year is of little consequence to the overall Big Picture.



If it does.  But are any new glaciers being formed anywhere or are they only all disappearing?  Seems to me the Himalayas aren't melting.  Even in North America we still have plenty of glaciers.

I visited the Columbian ice fields and I could trace the melting in Alberta.  But it's very gradual.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 5, 2017)

Camper6 said:


> If it does.  But are any new glaciers being formed anywhere or are they only all disappearing?  Seems to me the Himalayas aren't melting.  Even in North America we still have plenty of glaciers.I visited the Columbian ice fields and I could trace the melting in Alberta.  But it's very gradual.



If any new glaciers are being formed, they are not being reported.

The Himalayas glaciers are melting at an increasing pace...and that is the fresh water source for millions of people in that region.
http://www.irinnews.org/report/95917/climate-change-himalayan-glaciers-melting-more-rapidly

In Africa, Mt. Kilimanjaro has lost 85% of its ice cap in that past century, and that is the only fresh water supply for millions more
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/world/africa/03melt.html

We have been to the Columbia Ice Fields 3 times in the past 40 years.  The first time we were there, the glacier almost reached the road, and we took one of those monster tour busses out onto the glacier.  The last time we were there, about 5 years ago, the ice had retreated almost a mile from the highway, and the tour busses were shut down because the path they had carved for the busses had developed some huge crevasses, and they were in the process of trying to find a new route.  
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...pear-within-generation-says-manager-1.2653641

The information supporting the melting of land locked ice, due to increases in the global temperatures is all over the Internet...waiting for those in denial to do some basic research.


----------



## Camper6 (Nov 5, 2017)

So Don. Are we doomed?

New glaciers are being formed . Mt. St Helens, New Zealand, The Antarctic.

Just waiting for the doom and gloomers to do some basic research.


----------

