DOOM: Gulf Stream collapse

[NotAllThere]

its basic chemistry. CO2 is a green house gas which traps the heat and CO2 in atmosphere is at all time high.
Do you think there is another factor for warming , which has been missed by the world's scientists. Enlighten us.

Yeah, but they're all in it for the money, obedience to their zionist overlords.

[mattster]

This is my biggest problem as well... so much focus on man made climate change which may or may not be happening and is incredibly hard to prove/separate from non man made climate change....

Don't disagree with your point on pollution, but this part is simply not true. We are so certain that climate change is man made now that it really isn't a scientific debate any more. Co2 was first predicted to cause global warming back in the 19th century, and just about every prediction they have made along the way has been met or exceeded. We can measure co2 in the atmosphere, and we can even estimate the age of the new co2 through carbon dating so we know exactly where it is coming from. Of course the earth has warmed and cooled before, but what is happening now is happening orders of magnitude faster than anything we have been able to observe from the past. We might not be able to predict all of the step change events that are going to be triggered along the way (ice sheeets melting, loss of albedo, methane thawing in the tundra etc), but everyone we do learn about makes matters worse than before. The bottom line is that we are probably screwed unless get develop some serious new recapture tech.

[minestrone]

At what point would you believe that climate change is real ? Melting ice caps, burning forests in many countries, floods in many countries, storms of higher intensity, new records of higher temperature everywhere are these not good enough for you ? Maybe by the time most folks realize the calamities of climate change it will be too late to do anything.

About 20,000 years ago where I am was probably half a mile deep in ice. When Watt invented his steam engine, which you can reasonably say was the start of the industrial revolution, he didn't do it in an igloo. I don't see any clear evidence that we are changing an existing process and they don't have any clear evidence which is why they always frig the data shown to the public

'Climate change' is just a marketing mechanism now. All the adverts on TV are sponsored by major polluters. The objectives are to get subsidies from governments.

And God promised Noah there would be no flood to destroy the earth, so I'm easy with it all.

[BlasterBates]

This was the graph scientists published in their 2018 US climate assessment report :



Of course they could simply have used this graph which contains the same data. The only difference is that It goes back a bit further.

[xoggoth]

Given all the various data, I agree with mattster. Difficult, however, to draw conclusions from some individual graphs like the above, how does one factor in better technology for fighting fires, stricter laws, growing population etc?

[mattster]

Agreed, you can cherry pick any data/sata subset/graph you want to make whatever point you want.
Here's the temperature data we have - one thing we do know is that temps have never changed anything like as rapidly as they have in the past hundred years, at least as far as we can deduce from ice core data etc. As it happens, this change also tallies very well with predictions made based on co2 concentrations, and we we can certainly observe co2 rising in real time.

[minestrone]

So to counter the argument that the data is a bit iffy you just post a couple of graphs you found from god knows where with absolutely no references or explanation.

[mattster]

I was just reinforcing the point that anyone can post a random graph from anywhere that backs up their argument. Although I do find these graphs quite compelling, and you should be able to work out roughly what they repreent from the legends.

[BlasterBates]

I was just reinforcing the point that anyone can post a random graph from anywhere that backs up their argument. Although I do find these graphs quite compelling, and you should be able to work out roughly what they repreent from the legends.

There's a big weakness to proxy data. The proxy temperature deviates significantly from the actual temperature record in the latter part of the 20th century. If you had a similar rise of temperature in the past then you wouldn't see it. Therefore the graph says a lot less than you think. You need the assumption that the deviation is a purely 20th century phenomen.

https://skepticalscience.com/Tree-ri...ce-problem.htm

[AtW]

Cretins anti-climate argument will soon shift to their pre final defense: "it's too late (and too expensive!) to do anything anyway" and ultimately end up as - "it's the question of our liberty whether to pollute the planet and there is nothing mentioned in writing about it by the Founding Fathers anyway!"