Global warming - What's your "opinion"?

[larus]

It is clearly happening, and it is almost universally accepted by environmental scientists that human activity is the prime factor in its development.

But these scientists are experts, aren't they, and the populists don't trust experts.

Again, you've swallowed the misrepresentation of the facts.

Questions asked to scientist.
1. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? A - Yes
2. Is there climate change? - A - Yes (there always has been and always will be).
3. Is man emitting CO2 into the atmosphere? A - yes.

Conclusion - CO2 is going up, 97% of scientists agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore it must be AGW.

CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. It has changed in concentration from 287 parts per million to 400 parts per million. In percentage terms, it's gone from 0.0287% -> 0.04%.

However, water vapour is much of a greenhouse 'gas' than CO2, yet this is not discussed. Plus natural cycles like :
AMO
PDO El-Ninos/La-Ninas
Solar Cycles
Changes in cloud cover.

 

[larus]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. Click on the first link for a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

This lot also agree:

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

See my post #21 as to where this 97% has come from. It's a bogus figure yet is constantly trotted out by the green lobby.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I don't think it's being incorrectly framed. People are free to say what they want and hopefully back it up with some evidence.

But your question was framed in terms of does one believe or disbelieve in the fact. Anyone (not me btw) who thinks global warming to be cyclical will be caught up in the 'disbelieve the fact' camp and will have their intelligence insulted. It's just another issue used by people to make themselves appear superior. It's how political discourse is conducted in the 21st century.

 

[taz]

Remember when we were told we would all have to live underground because the ozone hole was getting bigger by the day and we would soon be frazzled by the sun if were to be out in it for more that 1minute ,, ,,all gone quiet now it's closed up again !! Ice caps melting well there is more ice now than there was 5 year's. Ago !! People used to panic about the Martian's landing in the 50s !!

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Earth 4500 Million years old-

Man 2 Million years old-

My money is on Earth to sort things out with or without us.

Edit: this is not to say we should cause wanten damage to our ecology,the animals or environment..

 

[Dick Head]

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Thread started in response to a post on another thread.

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, it seems some people still harbour doubts about global warming/climate change.

So what do you think? The scientists are right or are they driven by a shady leftist agenda

Yup I tend to believe the basic principles, though, like anything, there are also a lot of people with their own agendas. However, even if it was all false, you only have to look around you to know that a huge number of people are wasteful and if the science is not right now, at some point it will be. We may as well clean our acts up now while we can fix it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Irrespective of the drivel in this post, climate change is the most studied phenomena in the history of science, precisely because its effects are -- are as well as will be, as they're with us now -- so profound.

in your knee-jerk reaction to my post you seem to have inferred an awful lot into my statement that i didnt say. i only objected to "scientific fact" being so loosely attributed to an area where the collection and presentation of data is heavily caveated with probability in original the scientific work and conclusions. you may not remember, in the 90's we were supposed to be way past 2c increase by now, ice caps gone and sea level risen metres, the predictions get retrospectively revised unlike other science. in all likelihood we've probably acted sufficiently to avoid the higher claimed effects, so the warnings heeded.

(and what on earth did i post about wikipedia to upset you?)

 

[larus]

CO2 levels are higher than they have been for many millions of years. That is not cyclical and the cause of the CO2 level over 400ppm is clearly man-made. What the impact is is still a matter for debate, but global warming is predicted and global warming is happening, so putting two and two together...

All of the IPCC models have failed. They all predict a level of warming which we are just not seeing.

Before we had the last intense El-Nino (2015/16), there had been a hiatus with no warming trend for over 18 years. This was only broken by the strong El-Nino which has now ended, and temperatures are dropping back rapidly.

If CO2 was such an impact, then logically, as the level has got higher YOU WOULD EXPECT THE RATE OF WARMING TO INCREASE, but it's not. As I said, the hiatus in warming was 18 years and was only broken by the strong El-Nino.

All predictions from the Globull Warming side have failed:
1. There will be more hurricanes in the US. - Last cat 5 hurricane to hit the mainland US was Katrina in 2005.
2. There will be more tornados - tornado levels have been dropping for over 10 years.
3. The arctic will be ice-free by 2013, er well make that 2015, er ok now can we cat 2019 (or whatever the current date is).
4. We won't know what snow is in the UK - yeah, forgot about 2009 and 2010 winters eh.

Every event is not linked to CO2.

More rain.
Less rain.
More snow.
Less snow.
More storms.
Less storms.

Ffs, the climate is so frigging complex we don't understand it, yet a small change from 0.0287% to 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to wipe-out man.

One last point. CO2 is plant food and there has been a greening of the plant as CO2 has increased in the atmosphere.

Cold kills more people every year than heat, we should be grateful for any warming we get. Look at vegetation in cold parts of the world and then think of the tropics (don't say deserts as this is down to no rain, but if the planet warms then there will more moisture in the air leading to more rain).

 

[nicko31]

Good to see most of us are facing up to reality

 

[Bakero]

See my post #21 as to where this 97% has come from. It's a bogus figure yet is constantly trotted out by the green lobby.

Nasa are the green lobby? Where are you getting your information from. Care to post some links?

Re. 97% - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

 

[Bakero]

But your question was framed in terms of does one believe or disbelieve in the fact. Anyone (not me btw) who thinks global warming to be cyclical will be caught up in the 'disbelieve the fact' camp and will have their intelligence insulted. It's just another issue used by people to make themselves appear superior. It's how political discourse is conducted in the 21st century.

There were 3 options in the poll. Does it need a 4th? If so, what do you suggest?

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

Good to see most of us are facing up to reality

That we don't know that it's really man made or that it's not happening at all........in 25,000 years time the Sahara desert will be a lush green oasis AGAIN-due to the wobble of the earths axis....again we might just put it down to global warming.....

 

[Dick Head]

All of the IPCC models have failed. They all predict a level of warming which we are just not seeing.

Before we had the last intense El-Nino (2015/16), there had been a hiatus with no warming trend for over 18 years. This was only broken by the strong El-Nino which has now ended, and temperatures are dropping back rapidly.

If CO2 was such an impact, then logically, as the level has got higher YOU WOULD EXPECT THE RATE OF WARMING TO INCREASE, but it's not. As I said, the hiatus in warming was 18 years and was only broken by the strong El-Nino.

All predictions from the Globull Warming side have failed:
1. There will be more hurricanes in the US. - Last cat 5 hurricane to hit the mainland US was Katrina in 2005.
2. There will be more tornados - tornado levels have been dropping for over 10 years.
3. The arctic will be ice-free by 2013, er well make that 2015, er ok now can we cat 2019 (or whatever the current date is).
4. We won't know what snow is in the UK - yeah, forgot about 2009 and 2010 winters eh.

Every event is not linked to CO2.

More rain.
Less rain.
More snow.
Less snow.
More storms.
Less storms.

Ffs, the climate is so frigging complex we don't understand it, yet a small change from 0.0287% to 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to wipe-out man.

One last point. CO2 is plant food and there has been a greening of the plant as CO2 has increased in the atmosphere.

Cold kills more people every year than heat, we should be grateful for any warming we get. Look at vegetation in cold parts of the world and then think of the tropics (don't say deserts as this is down to no rain, but if the planet warms then there will more moisture in the air leading to more rain).

Fewer storms.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It's generally accepted that 'space' starts only about sixty miles up from the earth's surface. That's not very far. When you think about all the crap pumped into the atmosphere globally on a daily basis, it would be a bit head-mental IMHO not to believe it has a huge impact on temperatures. There's nowhere for that stuff to go.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

There were 3 options in the poll. Does it need a 4th? If so, what do you suggest?

I was referring to the question in your OP. It frames the debate and implies anyone who disagrees with you is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[banjo]

I'm confused, do I still need to wash out my used baked bean cans and recycle them?

 

[larus]

I'm confused, do I still need to wash out my used baked bean cans and recycle them?

There's a huge difference between pollution and CO2. The green lobby try to link them, but the reality is that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace atmospheric gas, which is beneficial to nature. It is a MINOR greenhouse gas, and the level of warming we have seen is within natural variability (if you exclude the manipulated data). No, this is not a conspiracy theorist topic, but a genuine concern that the agenda is being manipulated.

 

[banjo]

There's a huge difference between pollution and CO2. The green lobby try to link them, but the reality is that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace atmospheric gas, which is beneficial to nature. It is a MINOR greenhouse gas, and the level of warming we have seen is within natural variability (if you exclude the manipulated data). No, this is not a conspiracy theorist topic, but a genuine concern that the agenda is being manipulated.

Thanks.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes it's happening but also waiting for the next ICE age that will come for sure as eggs are eggs.

Global warming periods, like global ice-ages are cyclical. In due course, but not in any of our lifetimes, we'll start moving towards another ice age

We're in an ice age now.