• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

BHS1975

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
2,850
Reaction score
2,388
Location
Raleigh, NC
Well, the ones that are frequently quoted, talking about the oceans rising by this or that date or the ice caps melting by this or that date or the end of the four seasons or the biggest threat to our existence or....

Those people. And there are many.
You need to listen to James Hansen who has been spot on starting from way back in 1988 and Micheal Mann. There are other good ones as well but those are the main two that I would pay attention to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Bham 99

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
4,256
Reaction score
9,085
Location
(Ballantyne) South Charlotte, NC
You need to listen to James Hansen who has been spot on starting from way back in 1988 and Micheal Mann. There are other good ones as well but those are the main two that I would pay attention to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope you have not been waiting for this to happen since 1988.
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
974
Reaction score
1,819
Location
Clemmons, NC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
PBS and the UN? Are you serious. As for Michael Mann, this guy has so many errors in his hockey stick reconstructions he should not be taken seriously by anyone. James Hansen has not been right about anything related to Global Warming and his predictions show that clearly. If you want serious scientists who have dissenting views, read Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Lennaert Bengtsson and others.
 
Last edited:

Tornadocane

Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2019
Messages
429
Reaction score
652
Location
Hollywood, FL
The Alarmists don't have a plan. In two decades, I haven't seen a detailed outline of socioeconomic and environmental policies that will make a real impact while addressing the concerns of blue collar workers affected by the transition away from fossil fuels. I haven't seen anything in the Biden infrastructure bill other than a hodgepodge of programs that will provide tax payer dollars to contractors and government employees to pursue undefined goals. It's just the government picking winners and losers similar to I think the 2008 stimulus package that provided funds to campaign donors who then misappropriated it. Solyndra comes to mind.

In 2020, we were on track to increase our renewable energies to over 20% of all sources. A main contributor for stimulating the renewable industry was the Trump tax cut providing incentives to solar, wind, and EV, as well as the access to minerals that could be locally mined in the United States (UAMY lawsuit comes to mind). Alarmists are on the side that is currently fighting these companies, even though politicians in other countries are opening up mines due to supply-chain issues. The other issue is natural gas. Australia is building a pipeline. Europe is building a pipeline with Russia. We decided to shutdown construction even though the US is experiencing sever supply-chain issues throughout electronics, energy, and every thing else. We have to get superconductors from China and Africa, and they're squeezing manufacturers that make EVs. The private sector was actually making headway.
 

Rain Cold

You've been fixed. Next!
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
9,672
Reaction score
26,297
Location
Raleigh, NC
The Alarmists don't have a plan. In two decades, I haven't seen a detailed outline of socioeconomic and environmental policies that will make a real impact while addressing the concerns of blue collar workers affected by the transition away from fossil fuels. I haven't seen anything in the Biden infrastructure bill other than a hodgepodge of programs that will provide tax payer dollars to contractors and government employees to pursue undefined goals. It's just the government picking winners and losers similar to I think the 2008 stimulus package that provided funds to campaign donors who then misappropriated it. Solyndra comes to mind.

In 2020, we were on track to increase our renewable energies to over 20% of all sources. A main contributor for stimulating the renewable industry was the Trump tax cut providing incentives to solar, wind, and EV, as well as the access to minerals that could be locally mined in the United States (UAMY lawsuit comes to mind). Alarmists are on the side that is currently fighting these companies, even though politicians in other countries are opening up mines due to supply-chain issues. The other issue is natural gas. Australia is building a pipeline. Europe is building a pipeline with Russia. We decided to shutdown construction even though the US is experiencing sever supply-chain issues throughout electronics, energy, and every thing else. We have to get superconductors from China and Africa, and they're squeezing manufacturers that make EVs. The private sector was actually making headway.
Boom!
 

Bham 99

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
4,256
Reaction score
9,085
Location
(Ballantyne) South Charlotte, NC
There's a laundry list of extreme weather event's in the last few years that can't be accounted for by chance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No one is saying the planet is not warming.. I haven't heard one person deny that it is warming. But what you failed to understand is there are cycles. It is very short-sighted. And instead of you doing your real research you just leave it up to the big government to tell you what to do.
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
2,917
Location
Chapel Hill
No one is saying the planet is not warming.. I haven't heard one person deny that it is warming. But what you failed to understand is there are cycles. It is very short-sighted. And instead of you doing your real research you just leave it up to the big government to tell you what to do.
Name one time in history where big government has hurt anyone.
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
2,917
Location
Chapel Hill
The Alarmists don't have a plan. In two decades, I haven't seen a detailed outline of socioeconomic and environmental policies that will make a real impact while addressing the concerns of blue collar workers affected by the transition away from fossil fuels. I haven't seen anything in the Biden infrastructure bill other than a hodgepodge of programs that will provide tax payer dollars to contractors and government employees to pursue undefined goals. It's just the government picking winners and losers similar to I think the 2008 stimulus package that provided funds to campaign donors who then misappropriated it. Solyndra comes to mind.

In 2020, we were on track to increase our renewable energies to over 20% of all sources. A main contributor for stimulating the renewable industry was the Trump tax cut providing incentives to solar, wind, and EV, as well as the access to minerals that could be locally mined in the United States (UAMY lawsuit comes to mind). Alarmists are on the side that is currently fighting these companies, even though politicians in other countries are opening up mines due to supply-chain issues. The other issue is natural gas. Australia is building a pipeline. Europe is building a pipeline with Russia. We decided to shutdown construction even though the US is experiencing sever supply-chain issues throughout electronics, energy, and every thing else. We have to get superconductors from China and Africa, and they're squeezing manufacturers that make EVs. The private sector was actually making headway.
They act like the private sector is not interested in a sustainable society. We rely on GDP, healthy agriculture, etc. Our lives depend on a functioning society. All the government needs is tax revenue. To say one side doesn't care is fallacy. You are right, the private sector in heavily vested in making things better, we have to in order to maintain relevancy in the marketplace.
 

Lickwx

Catchin Bass and Grabbin Ass
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
5,531
Reaction score
9,851
Location
Lizard Lick, NC
They act like the private sector is not interested in a sustainable society. We rely on GDP, healthy agriculture, etc. Our lives depend on a functioning society. All the government needs is tax revenue. To say one side doesn't care is fallacy. You are right, the private sector in heavily vested in making things better, we have to in order to maintain relevancy in the marketplace.
I disagree , the private sectors purpose is to make money. Progress is a side affect of them trying to make money, if they make money destroying the environment then that is what they would do. All you have to do is look to third word countries to know that the private sector is not invested in the long term and very shortsighted . Look at the amazon , look at what Haiti did etc . They destroyed the resources that made them money, very short sighted . The private sector cares where it benefits them.
 

Avalanche

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
2,258
Reaction score
2,917
Location
Chapel Hill
Like a lot of folks, at a crossroads in what i think and how I feel about AGW. My Grandfather, born in 1900s, 02 or 07, always said it couldnt get warm enough for him, while his grandfather spoke of how hot it was during his childhood, which I would assume to be early to mid 1800s.

If my only historical perspective was my time here, then yes, its warmer. To what extent, if any, can we make temps rise or cool, seems nominal at best. How cool should we try to make it? In spite of AGW, people still die from cold temps. So exactly where do we want to control the temp to be? Not everyone will be satisfied. Welcome to our new world.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2019
Messages
542
Reaction score
1,321
Location
Easley, SC
I am truly fascinated by the discussion in this thread and see valid points on both sides. I don't really opine in this thread much as I just don't know enough about this extremely complex issue to make a lot of contributions or take a hard stance. I tend to say that the climate is ever changing and there are far too many cycles and factors for us to say with any certainty that we know exactly what is causing these changes. I do think the climate has warmed in my lifetime; especially in my corner of the world, which is what I am most familiar with. However, my lifetime hasn't even been the blink of eye and the Earth has been way hotter and colder many times over in it's history. It makes sense to me that we are still warming from our last ice age, and from the Little Ice Age of the 16 and 1700s. Are we contributing to or hastening that warming? I think it is certainly possible; but then again, maybe we aren't. I think it's a bit arrogant for us to claim we know for certain one way or the other.

Maybe we should try something different than what we're doing. Let's stop using political manipulation (to an extreme), fear-mongering, and name-calling, to try to get people to fall in line with a movement that most of it's adherents don't even follow. Many of the most vocal preachers and rabid criticizers of AGW are also the most extreme contributors. Hollywood, entertainers, politicians; the one-percenters. The hypocrisy of their never ending finger pointing and their never ending consumption of fossil fuels (through their private jets, mega yachts, multiple mansions, garages full of cars, constant world traveling, and lavish dinner parties of seafood) is beyond sickening. If they want people to take them seriously, find some people who at least try to walk the walk.

I'm a believer we should be good stewards of the Earth because it is our home, but it starts with personal responsibility; not manipulation, fear-mongering, and name-calling. Beyond personal responsibility; I think we should reduce pollution, increase recycling, stop making everything disposable, research better alternatives, and make better choices. But, I think we should do these things because it makes sense to keep our home clean, efficient, and beautiful. Because we have a responsibility (there's that word again) to our feathered, furry, and scaly friends and leafy companions. But not because some people tell us they "know" how to fix the planet and we better fall in line; even though they don't have to. Not because people want to use the issue to manipulate surrendered control to governments and companies more interested in power than stewardship. And not because some people enjoy putting themselves on pedastals over people they see themselves as more enlightened and educated than. I think there is room for common ground here. We can be better stewards (and I think most people are willing to be) without all the bunk.
 
Last edited:

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
23,561
Location
SAV, GA
1. John Coleman, the guy in the video who says there is NO man-made GW, died 3.5 years ago. So, his saying this is very old news.
2. John has no met. degree. He has a bachelors in journalism.
3. John has done no studies of his own on AGW. Note that in totally refuting AGW, he backs it up with nothing.
4. Election Wizard has been pushing the BS that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump with no evidence. Therefore, EW has no credibility.

If one is going to look at this clip objectively, this should all be kept in mind.

From all I have read and learned, the physics behind AGW (increased greenhouse gas related global warming) are not debatable. However, what is debatable is how much AGW will end up warming the globe as politics are playing a huge part in the debate by making it worse than reality on the lib side.


From Mike Maguire, a pro met in Indiana who is 100% against the Green New Deal and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, who takes a middle road:

"On the contribution from greenhouse gas warming. I'm with Cliff Mass on this one. Probably 2 deg. F or so contribution from the increase in CO2. "

"For sure the planet is warmer by just over 1 deg. C over the last century with the coldest places during the coldest times of year(and night) warming the most. The physics of CO2 are irrefutable."


"There is real greenhouse gas warming with absolute proven physics. Anybody that claims otherwise is to be avoided as a credible source.

But the authentic science shows pretty conclusively that its 50% of the amount that mainstream science is using for political, non scientific objectives."
--------------------------
So, because he said there is NO AGW, I'm saying John Coleman is wrong.
 
Last edited:

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
974
Reaction score
1,819
Location
Clemmons, NC
Coleman does indeed not have a degree in any of the Atmospheric Sciences, James Hansen got his degree in Math and Physics, then an MS in Astronomy and finally a PHD in Physics. Michael Mann has his degrees in Math, Computing and Physics and also Geology. While these disciplines are used in Sciences , people like John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer have degrees specific to climate. Christy has a a MS and PHD in Atmospheric Sciences as well as Math. Spencer has a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and a MS and PHD in Meteorology. Curry has degrees in geology and a PHD in geophysical sciences. So why should we put more credence in a math and general physics guy over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?
 

Lickwx

Catchin Bass and Grabbin Ass
Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2019
Messages
5,531
Reaction score
9,851
Location
Lizard Lick, NC
I’m pretty sure some of y’all global warming pushers have hilarious views on what your local climate used to be like . Savannah never averaged sub 60 highs or mild summers . 1960s 1880s 1560s or ever . Neither did Raleigh ever average more than a degree cooler than it is today. Your global warming is so intense Raleigh warmed .35 degrees from 81-10 to 91-20. If we are warming rapidly we should have warmed more , after all the 80s were dropped from our record and they were very cold . We dropped one of our coldest decades and still barely warmed ?
 
Last edited:

GaWx

Supporter
Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2017
Messages
10,288
Reaction score
23,561
Location
SAV, GA
Coleman does indeed not have a degree in any of the Atmospheric Sciences, James Hansen got his degree in Math and Physics, then an MS in Astronomy and finally a PHD in Physics. Michael Mann has his degrees in Math, Computing and Physics and also Geology. While these disciplines are used in Sciences , people like John Christy, Judith Curry and Roy Spencer have degrees specific to climate. Christy has a a MS and PHD in Atmospheric Sciences as well as Math. Spencer has a BS in Atmospheric Sciences and a MS and PHD in Meteorology. Curry has degrees in geology and a PHD in geophysical sciences. So why should we put more credence in a math and general physics guy over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?
The issue I'm addressing is that Coleman believed there's NO AGW...not even a little...NONE. The three folks who I bolded all do believe there is AGW...just not to catastrophic or modeled levels:


1. John Christy:

a. From Wikipedia:
"In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

b. From John Christy - DeSmog :
“…it is fairly well agreed that the surface temperature will rise about 1°C as a modest response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 if the rest of the component processes of the climate system remain independent of this response.”


2. Judith Curry:

a. From:
Climate Change Skeptic Or Denier? (forbes.com)

"Professor Judith Curry is often interviewed for her thoughts on climate change. While labelled a denier by many, she concedes that to some degree, she is part of the consensus (see: ). “Yes it’s warming. Yes, humans contribute to it. I mean everybody agrees with that; and I’m in the 98%. It’s when you get down to the details that there is genuine disagreement [January 7, 2017].” Is she a denier? A skeptic? A doubter?"

b. From Judith Curry - Wikipedia

"she accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate prediction models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable."


3. Roy Spencer:
From: No, Roy Spencer is not a climate “denier” « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)
  1. "I believe the climate system has warmed (we produce one of the global datasets that shows just that, which is widely used in the climate community), and that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning contributes to that warming. I’ve said this for many years.
  2. I believe future warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would be somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 2 deg. C, which is actually within the range of expected warming the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has advanced for 30 years now. (It could be less than this, but we simply don’t know).

I routinely take other skeptics to task for believing such things as 'there is no greenhouse effect',

In the case of global warming, alarmists apparently insist that you must believe that global warming is a 'crisis' or an 'emergency', or else you will be thrown under the bus."


OTOH, Coleman, who had no atmospheric degree, said in that clip (which was in 2014) that there is definitely NO AGW and provided absolutely no evidence for that assertion. See the big difference here between Coleman and the other three? That's the only point I'm making. Why should we put more credence in a journalism guy (Coleman) over people with degrees in Geophysical science and Atmospheric sciences?

If you disagree with this point, please explain. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Downeastnc

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2019
Messages
4,010
Reaction score
6,880
Location
Greenville NC
I’m pretty sure some of y’all global warming pushers have hilarious views on what your local climate used to be like . Savannah never averaged sub 60 highs or mild summers . 1960s 1880s 1560s or ever . Neither did Raleigh ever average more than a degree cooler than it is today. Your global warming is so intense Raleigh warmed .35 degrees from 81-10 to 91-20. If we are warming rapidly we should have warmed more , after all the 80s were dropped from our record and they were very cold . We dropped one of our coldest decades and still barely warmed ?
The warming is not even over the entire planet.....the effect is felt more in the poles and less as you move towards the equator....

Look its a simple question, the Earth has a natural CO2 cycle, over the last 100 yrs of so man has come along and intervened in that cycle and is now releasing 30-35 gigatons of what was sequestered CO2 annually, CO2 has a known radiative forcing rate, CO2 is increasing faster than any known period in the last several million years, there is no way it is not contributing to warming, how much is a valid question....so your mistake is equating the warming in RDU with the rest of the world......its a much bigger deal for say the folks in Alaska...


This graph says it all....
Global-atmospheric-CO2-concentrations-from-1700-to-2021.jpg
 
Top