Is Al Gore's global warming theory harder to convince people of when the climate is actually cold?

[Occams Barber]

I could also ask how anyone knows that GW is caused by man. Look at the facts about solar cycles, orbit around the sun and varying distances, volcanic activity, etc and you'll see.

There's no point in trying to shift the burden of proof to me.

You said (post 210)

But normal earth changes aren't

(focused on by science), and they are far bigger than anything we (humans) can do.

(bracketed words added by me for clarity)

How do you know that 'normal' earth changes (Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity) are far bigger than anything we (humans) can do?

What leads you to the conclusion that these other factors are being ignored?

What is the relative contribution of these 'natural' factors compared to human induced CO2?
OB

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I could also ask how anyone knows that GW is caused by man. Look at the facts about solar cycles, orbit around the sun and varying distances, volcanic activity, etc and you'll see.

It's not that humans are causing it. The issue is that we are accelerating the process, as well as potentially pushing it to new heights and making it worse than it might naturally be. I assure you, every climate scientist is fully aware of Milankovich cycles, orbital periods, volcanic activity, and all other non-anthropogenic causes of climate change. But there's no escaping the fact that humans are releasing massive quantities of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases show a historical correlation to rising temperatures, and chemistry tells us why this is (see earlier discussion in this thread).

Basically, we have natural, cyclic processes that are being enhanced and accelerated due to human activity. Normally, the naturally-produced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere during a warming cycle would be low enough that natural processes would also be able to remove it from the atmosphere, leading to a cooling trend. However, we currently have far more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have ever measured before, and the trend shows no sign of stopping. The higher that amount gets, the higher the chances that this climate change cycle will not be reversible by natural means. Long-term increased temperatures will mean the melting of the ice caps and increased precipitation - which leads to increased water vapor (also a greenhouse gas). Some CO2 is absorbed by the oceans (which is one of the natural processes I was talking about), but that "absorption" is through the creation of carbonic acid. If the oceans continue to absorb CO2, they will become increasingly acidic, making them less and less hospitable for marine life.

In short, if climate change continues unchecked on current trends, the planet will become increasingly unfit for humans to live on.

 

[USincognito]

I can see where you're coming from. But my issue with GW comes from the fact that man-made causes is the only thing that is being focused on, while ignoring solar cycles, varying distances of earth from the sun during orbit around the sun, problems with the way earth temperature readings have been acquired.

I could also ask how anyone knows that GW is caused by man. Look at the facts about solar cycles, orbit around the sun and varying distances, volcanic activity, etc and you'll see.

What facts should we be looking at? Solar cycles? The sun has been moribund for the last 33 years. The last three solar cycles have been the weakest ever observed and we going months without observing a single sunspot. The orbit around the sun? I have seen zero evidence that there has been any significant change to the normal orbital distance from aphelion to perihelion. Do you seriously think that scientists haven't considered any other factors? The reason why we don't hear about those other factors is they have been investigated and found not to be responsible for the warming. On the other hand, we do know that atmospheric CO2 has gone from 320ppm to 405ppm.

 

[rambot]

it's less than 1% of total greenhouse gases...
It is a straw man. It has the whole world looking in the wrong direction.

In fact it's about .039%. But before I get too far into it, do you recognize that our biosphere is both resilient and in a delicate balance?

Have you ever read the UN "Convention banning the military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques?"
In that convention signed by 200 nations in 1976 the committee describe the effects such environmental modification techniques CAN CAUSE.

“…..earthquakes; tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.
It is further understood that all the phenomena listed above, when produced by a military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result, in widespread, long-lasting or severe destruction, damage or injury. Thus, military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques as defined in article II, so as to cause those phenomena as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, would be prohibited.” source

These weapons have been used for decades now. It is all about globalisation, re-wilding and basically worship of mother gaia.

and yet there is no categorically solid example that has caused those results.

Likely because it's never happenned

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not that humans are causing it. The issue is that we are accelerating the process, as well as potentially pushing it to new heights and making it worse than it might naturally be. I assure you, every climate scientist is fully aware of Milankovich cycles, orbital periods, volcanic activity, and all other non-anthropogenic causes of climate change. But there's no escaping the fact that humans are releasing massive quantities of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. These gases show a historical correlation to rising temperatures, and chemistry tells us why this is (see earlier discussion in this thread).

Basically, we have natural, cyclic processes that are being enhanced and accelerated due to human activity. Normally, the naturally-produced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere during a warming cycle would be low enough that natural processes would also be able to remove it from the atmosphere, leading to a cooling trend. However, we currently have far more CO2 in the atmosphere than we have ever measured before, and the trend shows no sign of stopping. The higher that amount gets, the higher the chances that this climate change cycle will not be reversible by natural means. Long-term increased temperatures will mean the melting of the ice caps and increased precipitation - which leads to increased water vapor (also a greenhouse gas). Some CO2 is absorbed by the oceans (which is one of the natural processes I was talking about), but that "absorption" is through the creation of carbonic acid. If the oceans continue to absorb CO2, they will become increasingly acidic, making them less and less hospitable for marine life.

In short, if climate change continues unchecked on current trends, the planet will become increasingly unfit for humans to live on.

And yet, no matter what we do, it is always considered to be "not enough". Electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines, energy efficient appliances, LED bulbs, cleaner emissions from power plants, etc. have all been done in my lifetime, and yet the climate change crowd makes it sound like we're in worse shape than we've ever been in. Hardly makes any sense. However, what do we hear about as being good enough? More government control and global taxes.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

And yet, no matter what we do, it is always considered to be "not enough". Electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines, energy efficient appliances, LED bulbs, cleaner emissions from power plants, etc. have all been done in my lifetime, and yet the climate change crowd makes it sound like we're in worse shape than we've ever been in. Hardly makes any sense.

Why doesn't it make sense? Our population is growing, increasing our energy demands, there are more cars on the road every year, etc. If we reduce the emissions of a powerplant by 20%, but have to build a second powerplant to keep up with demand, we've still increased emissions by 60%. And that doesn't take into account the impacts of rapidly-industrializing nations (China, India, most of SE Asia, etc) that lack the same level of environmental regulations (and enforcement) that we have in the US.

 

[LoAmmi]

And yet, no matter what we do, it is always considered to be "not enough". Electric cars, solar panels and wind turbines, energy efficient appliances, LED bulbs, cleaner emissions from power plants, etc. have all been done in my lifetime, and yet the climate change crowd makes it sound like we're in worse shape than we've ever been in. Hardly makes any sense. However, what do we hear about as being good enough? More government control and global taxes.

Sure, people have done a lot of stuff that doesn't really impact their lives. Changing to LED bulbs? Not a big deal.

Getting rid of the giant pick-up truck with NOTHING in the back and getting a more fuel efficient car? OVER MY DEAD BODY.

Taking more public transportation or trying to get more public transit in place? WHAT IS THIS? COMMUNIST RUSSIA?!

 

[Aldebaran]

Sure, people have done a lot of stuff that doesn't really impact their lives. Changing to LED bulbs? Not a big deal.

Getting rid of the giant pick-up truck with NOTHING in the back and getting a more fuel efficient car? OVER MY DEAD BODY.

Taking more public transportation or trying to get more public transit in place? WHAT IS THIS? COMMUNIST RUSSIA?!

Then here's the ultimate question: What will we have to do for the GW people to say, "it's enough"? How many more taxes? How many more freedoms? How much ability? So far, I've only heard them say that even if we did every single thing they've proposed, it wouldn't be enough.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Then here's the ultimate question: What will we have to do for the GW people to say, "it's enough"? How many more taxes? How many more freedoms? How much ability? So far, I've only heard them say that even if we did every single thing they've proposed, it wouldn't be enough.

At this point, the objective is to slow the process as much as possible to give us time to figure out a long-term solution. You're right, with current technology and processes, even if we were doing everything possible, it still wouldn't be enough to stop or reverse global warming. But researchers are working on alternative energy sources and ways of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere that can do that. And the longer they have to work on them, the more likely it becomes that they will succeed.

Edit: Think of it like having a terminal disease. There's a treatment that exists now that probably won't save your life, but it will keep you alive for a bit longer, and there are doctors working on a full cure. The treatment is expensive and has nasty side effects, but you'll live with that because it allows you to live longer and you have a better chance of surviving long enough to get the full cure in the future.

 

[LoAmmi]

Then here's the ultimate question: What will we have to do for the GW people to say, "it's enough"? How many more taxes? How many more freedoms? How much ability? So far, I've only heard them say that even if we did every single thing they've proposed, it wouldn't be enough.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you live in an alternate reality where we've taken massive steps to combat it and people are screaming not enough. I don't think we've really taken many steps and, when we've tried, corporate-backed politicians block those measures.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm sorry, but it seems like you live in an alternate reality where we've taken massive steps to combat it and people are screaming not enough. I don't think we've really taken many steps and, when we've tried, corporate-backed politicians block those measures.

I've heard this claim many times in my 40+ years, and yet I've seen plenty done. When you looked at the skyline of most of our cities, it would be often obscured by smog. We never see that anymore. We also used to have 2 choices for gasoline: Regular and Unleaded. Now it's Unleaded, Premium, Electric. When I was younger, there were NO wind turbines and nobody used solar. The only type of light bulbs were incandescant and the bar-type flourescent. Not even CFL. Now LEDs have gotten to the point of regular use for household, commercial and even street lighting. The list doesn't end there, but it's pretty obvious that very many steps have been taken.

 

[Occams Barber]

I've heard this claim many times in my 40+ years, and yet I've seen plenty done. When you looked at the skyline of most of our cities, it would be often obscured by smog.

Apart from being your anecdotal UScentric opinion (many cities still have major smog problems) smog is mixture of smoke or chemical pollutants with fog (water vapour). It does not necessarily include CO2 or other greenhouse gases.

We never see that anymore. We also used to have 2 choices for gasoline: Regular and Unleaded. Now it's Unleaded, Premium, Electric.

Unleaded petrol is formulated to reduce lead pollution not CO2. While there have been some attempts to reduce vehicle pollution the reality is that a US Gal of E10 produces 18.9 lbs of CO2 when combusted (source). Globally transportation is responsible for 14% of CO2 emissions (source)

When I was younger, there were NO wind turbines and nobody used solar.

Given all the noise it's easy to be left with the impression that wind and solar have made dramatic inroads into electricity production. Not really. As of 2015 they collectively provided around 6% of the world's electricity (solar= 1.2%, wind = 4.7%) (source, page 49).

he only type of light bulbs were incandescant and the bar-type flourescent. Not even CFL. Now LEDs have gotten to the point of regular use for household, commercial and even street lighting.

In the US lighting is around 9.4% of electricity usage (source). This is probably much higher than the global average. LEDs reduce consumption by around 75% compared to incandescent. If ALL countries replaced ALL lighting with LEDs the best we could hope for is a 7% reduction in electricity usage. In real terms the impact of LEDs on current global electricity usage would be much smaller (source)

The list doesn't end there, but it's pretty obvious that very many steps have been taken.

The problem is that not enough is being done quickly enough. CO2 levels are still rising and temperature increase follows CO2 concentration.
OB

 

[Hieronymus]

CO2 is not a pollutant.
In fact, Carbon based fuel is green energy, because plants thrive with more CO2.
They prefer it warmer too, that's why they thrive in greenhouses.
CO2 is greenhouse gas because they use it in greenhouses to stimulate growth.
It's usually a by product of the heating system.

The problem is that not enough is being done quickly enough. CO2 levels are still rising and temperature increase follows CO2 concentration.
OB

It depends on who you ask and where you look.
Global warming has been exposed to be a dishonest psyop several times.
It also depends on what you see as a problem.
More organisms (including humans) die of cold than of heat.

Fact is, we get the environmental fear inappropriate content shoved down our throats everywhere.
There is an agenda behind it.
Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and the Kalergi plan too.

Be careful who you follow.

 

[Occams Barber]

CO2 is not a pollutant.
In fact, Carbon based fuel is green energy, because plants thrive with more CO2.
They prefer it warmer too, that's why they thrive in greenhouses.
CO2 is greenhouse gas because they use it in greenhouses to stimulate growth.
It's usually a by product of the heating system.
It depends on who you ask and where you look.
Global warming has been exposed to be a dishonest psyop several times.
It also depends on what you see as a problem.
More organisms (including humans) die of cold than of heat.

Fact is, we get the environmental fear inappropriate content shoved down our throats everywhere.
There is an agenda behind it.
Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and the Kalergi plan too.

Be careful who you follow.

This post is 'so wrong it's not even wrong' (hat tip to Wolfgang Pauli)
OB

 

[Hieronymus]

This post is 'so wrong it's not even wrong' (hat tip to Wolfgang Pauli)
OB

Cognitive dissonance much?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Isn’t Florida supposed to be under water by now?

 

[cow451]

Isn’t Florida supposed to be under water by now?

Just financially.

 

[USincognito]

Isn’t Florida supposed to be under water by now?

No, why do you ask? Did you supposedly hear that from someone?

 

[DaisyDay]

Is it legal to shoot a cancer patient? After all, they're already dying...

Hey, a lot of us recover these days - we're not dying any more than you are.

 

[USincognito]

CO2 is not a pollutant.

In this case, it is.

>> In fact, Carbon based fuel is green energy, because plants thrive with more CO2.
> There's actually a limit and if this claim was valid, then CO2 wouldn't have increased from 320ppm to 405ppm because it would have been absorbed by all the new plant growth.

>> They prefer it warmer too,
> Again, only to a certain point. Land plants tend not to thrive in hot arid areas and marine plants tend to die off when there's red tide.

>> CO2 is greenhouse gas because they use it in greenhouses to stimulate growth.
> No, just no. Greenhouse gases are called that because in the atmosphere they mimic the effects of a greenhouse by trapping heat.

>> Global warming has been exposed to be a dishonest psyop several times.
> Tin foil hat fantasy.

>> There is an agenda behind it.
>> Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and the Kalergi plan too.
> The conspiracy theory forum is ---> that way.