What Do We Think About Climate Change

Inaccurate. The science on this subject WAS well established that co2 had a very short life in the atmosphere. The idea that it is much longer came along AFTER the AGW alarmism took on political legs and when the lab toys we call "Global Climate Models" could not produce sufficiently scary predictions with the established science, so the postulated new 'science' of 200 year old CO2. Evidence for this: NON-EXISTANT.

Inaccurate. Large scale CO2 releases started after WWII. WWII ended 63 years ago. AGW alarmists have for years tried to stretch the time frame for anthropogenic CO2 releases. There's a simple, (and COMPLETELY scientifically dishonest) reason for doing this; it gets them around explaining why atmospheric CO2 levels were rising BEFORE significant anthropogenic CO2 releases began, meaning those increases were (and still are) due to natural causes. You'll even hear them say that "CO2 has been rising since the start of the industrial revolution, since circa 1850". This is true of course. What is NOT TRUE is that humans were releasing CO2 in any significant amount since circa 1950, and not for circa a hundred years later. Yet CO2 was indeed rising during that century. In fact, the more recent increases fit nicely on that same trend line

We wouldn't put up with such factual sloppiness from politicians. So why should we put up with it from eco/ploitical pressure groups? ******** is ******** no matter who says it.

Jimbo

 

Why not? we normally do? I do at least agree with your last paragraph - well put

 

respectfully my friend
I would suggest you brush up on your atmospheric dynamics

 

My 2c worth: I think we are hastening a natural process. With out our input it would be happening at a slower rate.

 

a repeat of the Permian Triassic boundary extinction
speak now or forever hold your peace
( ps.
Ive offered other fully noted articles before on this forum and what I found was my detractors were going to ignore the research and believe what they wanted any way; so forgive me if I dont go to the trouble of quoting friends and colleagues, and I just write )

AEROBIC STRATIFICATION

feel free to read and repost the following

pps.
every point I am about to make can and will be corroborated by the research of multiple scientists in published and pear reviewed articles should any questions of the veracity of a claim be made.


IN THE NEXT TEN TO TWENTY YEARS
THE WORLDS OCEANS WILL ESSENTIALLY BE DEAD
( quote by Dr Jeremy Jackson professor emeritus of ocean sciences scripts oceanographic institute )
BASED ON THREE MAJOR FACTORS
FISHING TO EXTINCTION
PLASTICS POLLUTION
AND SIMPLE FLUID DYNAMICS

THIS WILL RESULT IN CIRCUMSTANCES SIMILAR TO THE PERMIAN TRIASSIC EXTINCTION IN WHICH 90% OF ALL OCEAN LIFE DIED
70% OF ALL LAND ANIMALS
100% OF ALL ANIMALS OVER ABOUT TEN POUNDS
IT IS POSSIBLE WE ARE PAST THE POINT OF NO RETURN
BUT I PERSONALLY BELIEVE IF WE WERE TO WAKE UP TODAY
WE COULD TURN IT ALL AROUND
( EXEPT FOR THE PLASTICS POLLUTION )

GLOBAL DIMMING ( the reflection of sun light by atmospheric pollutants )
GLOBAL WARMING ( the reaction of sunlight with invisible pollutants )
FISHING TO EXTINCTION ( we have removed 95 out of 100 fish from out oceans )
POLLUTION ( no accurate records exist but pollution can be estimated in TRILLIONS of tons or multiples of 2,000,000,000,000,000, lbs per year )
ROUGHLY 60,000,000,000 TONS OF PLASTICS HAVE BEEN DUMPED INTO OUR OCEANS

THE AEROBIC STRATIFICATION OF THE WORLDS OCEANS

THERE HAS BEEN A TOTAL FAILURE OF OUR GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE THE OPEN SEA

THERE HAS BEEN A NEAR TOTAL FAILURE OF OUR SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITIES TO EFFECTIVELY SOUND THE ALARM

FOR INSTANCE
OVER 200,000,000 TONS OF PLASTIC IS PRODUCED EACH YEAR. FOR EVERY TON OF PLASTIC THERE IS FIVE TONS OF MOSTLY TOXIC WAIST PRODUCED.
WORLD WIDE LESS THAN 3% IS RECYCLED
THE AMOUNT OF PLASTIC PRODUCED EACH IS RISING BY ABOUT 10% ANNUALLY

PLASTIC BAGS ALONE KILLED OFF MORE BIOMASS OF GREEN SEA TURTLES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO OVER THE LAST TWENTY YEARS THAN THE MASS OF ALL MAMMALS ALIVE ON THE CONTINENT OF AFRICA TODAY
COMBINED ( I have multiple sources for this figure if you need me to dig it up )

These bags were mistaken for the jelly fish that these marine reptiles love to eat and they choked to death. Of the 150,million or so green sea turtles that once swam in the gulf there are today less than 50 thousand

if we are afraid to face the truth
how will we face the future

on 9/11 tragedy (RIP)
on 9/12-15 some thing extraordinary was discovered
and scientists all over the world shook there heads in disbelief
( frankly, when I read the research, I didnt believe it either )

When air traffic over the usa was halted, due to a lack of jet con trails reflecting sunshine the surface temperature variation between day and night ROSE and average of 1 deg, C. in the usa over a three day period of time
That's huge.
No atmospheric temperature reading in the history of records keeping could compare with this discovery. The world of atmospheric sciences was shocked
and the question of global dimming was answered
Were it not for the reflection of visible atmospheric pollutants we would be seeing an even more dramatic rise in global temperatures today

Since the early seventies the average intensity of the sun as measured at the surface of our planet HAS DROPPED BY AN AVERAGE OF OF OVER TEN PERCENT. This data was presented and ignored by a community that simply couldn't believe the stunning truth and its implications.
Ten percent was simply to shocking to be believed .
The recent catastrophic rise in world temperatures is apparently partly driven by a cleaner atmosphere that coincides with the advent of clean air laws throughout north America and Europe.

We have mandated cleaner air through the controls of VISIBLE pollutants,
but failed to address INVISIBLE pollutants, the green house gas's
as the atmosphere gets even clearer
and the levels of co2 and of other green house gas's rise for whatever reasons
the temperature also rises, fast

but I believe this could also be our finest hour
climatologists and marine scientists around the world are coming to a consensus on our likely near futures
there are two of them
one in which we do little or nothing and face a catastrophic extinction event
the other,
will lead to us having ancestors
who will look back on us and judge what we do now
at the edge of the world

WE ARE FACED WITH THE FOLLOWING

IT IS NOT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN

THIS IS HAPPENING

ITS HAPPENED BEFORE

ITS HAPPENING AGAIN

AND ITS HAPPENING FAST

I HAVE SEEN THE ENEMY
AND HE IS I


The rapid melting of the ice sheets will overwhelm the oceans ability to mix this influx of fresh water.
The alteration of the density of surface water due to warming and fresh water influx is already beginning to stall the grand oceanic current.
Scientists have seen a drop in current strength in some areas and in some years of 30% in the gulf stream

THAT 30% IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 40 TIMES MORE THAN ALL THE WATER FROM EVERY RIVER THAT DRAINS INTO THE ENTIRE PACIFIC OCEAN, COMBINED.

A complete halt of some up-welling currents on the north west coast of the us,
leading to the deaths of millions of marine organisms and hundreds of thousands of sea birds and marine mammals, has recently been observed.
Now Im not saying this MAY not have happened before, but we dont know that it has, and it certainly seems a dramatic enough event to at least be worthy of notice

The stalling of these vertical currents will lead to the aerobic stratification of the oceans.( predicted by Scripps oceanographic institute AND nearly every oceanic currents model at every major oceanographic institute and every atmospheric research institute around the world )

THIS IS LIKELY TO OCCUR IN THE NEXT TWENTY YEARS

THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE AT LEAST TWICE

THE LAST OF THE TWO MAJOR HISTORICAL EVENTS IS KNOWN AS THE PERMIAN TRIASSIC BOUNDARY EXTINCTION

The oceans will become a microbial soup dominated by bacteria, virus and jellyfish and no higher vertebrate forms will survive, there will b no fish, no birds, no whales, no sharks, no tuna, no fishing no shrimp no swimming and no sailing in the ocean or even walking along the beach nothing, even sea shells will dissolve in the now acidic oceans and all of it gone forever unless we DECIDE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE NOW
the eutrification of the oceans also results in the advent of toxic algae which when driven by coastal winds to shore become airborne making it unsafe to breath the sea air
The oceans oxygen producing potential will be negligible once reduced to a microbial anaerobic soup.
( the oceans presently produce about 70% of our oxygen. )
What they will be able to produce is volatile hydrates, dissolved sulfurs, methane's, ammonia's, and lots of co2.
These will saturate the oceans and erupt in events similar to what occurs in certain stratified lakes today like lake Nyos and Monouor .
our atmosphere will be saturated with these gas's instead of oxygen and will no longer be able to support large life forms

We have subsidized our population levels on the very last fish we took from the oceans and 95/100 of those fish are, as of this writing,
GONE.
At present every major fishery in the world is at the brink of collapse
( except Alaskan polock )
At present every single major fish species in the oceans is already environmentally extinct ( that means they do not exist in numbers sufficient to influence the environment around them i.e. the balance that once existed is lost )

NOT MIGHT BE LOST
OR COULD BE IN THE FUTURE
BUT TODAY
THE ECOSYSTEM OF OUR OCEANS HAS ALREADY BEEN ( for now ) DESTROYED

there are today numerous anoxic dead zones rapidly growing in areas around the world, like the gulf of mexico dead zone, which varies between 6000 and 7000 sqr miles and is for all practical purposes devoid of vertebrate life, or any marine animal over a few grams in ttl mass

We have in our history examples of nearly every step of our present environmental break down and its results. There is no reason to not act . Although many scientists think that we have reached the point of no return. I think we can still turn it around, it may take a few more years for the ignorant to become fully aware of what the scientists now know and what it means for our future, but if we bend our industrial might to a common end,
I think we can save ourselves and this planet.
As a public we have had our successes and our failures.
The coming environmental storm represents what is our greatest challenge
a challenge that will bring all of us to the edge
and back again


I think some day
our decedents will look down on our planet and say of us
that we were the lucky ones
I believe they may envy us this time and this challenge
Ild like them to say of us
that we had the knowledge the courage and the determination
and used it
I want them to look back at our time
and instead of blame us
congratulate us
because what we do now in these next few years
will write a history
no one will forget
or no one will be around to remember
its up to you
BECAUSE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
THIS **** IS HAPPENING FAST
ITS HAPPENING NOW
AND IT WILL EFFECT US ALL
WEALTHY, POOR OR IGNORANT

feel free to read and repost the previous
( fix the bad grammar first please )
this isnt pretty
its not a f$#@%&g hype job or politics or dream land
and I dont write this cause any one paid me
nor do I bother to address tripe that spins on the mas media engine
this **** is going down weather you admit it or not
educate yourselves my friends
and speak out
or speak no more

and please
if you chose to disagree
fine but
dont come at me with some sarcastic first year chemistry lesson
or some decades old industry diatribe
ask me were I got my info if you like
I will either refer you to a colleague or direct you to a lecture or paper

 

ok I just noticed something about that
it should have read 95 out of 100 fish over one foot
the figure does not include fish species under one foot
my bad
its what I get for not sending to my editor first
my bad
B

 

Boston,

You've double posted. Kindly please remove the duplicate post; one of you posts is MORE than enough A little terseness would be welcome.

Jimbo

 

oops
sorry

 

Boston,

Dude, calm down. The good news is that this is wrong; dead wrong. If you were actually current with this controversy you would know that temperature increases ALWAYS precede CO2 increases by SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS. You can't blame CO2 for causing an event (warming) when the cause and effect relationship SIMPLY DOES NOT EXIST. Every ice core and sea floor mud core yet extracted has shown the consistency of this relationship. This is a BIG PROBLEM for AGW alarmists, don't you think?

CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas; water vapor is the only greenhouse gas of real significance and it is (almost) entirely natural in origin. I suppose the 'Holy Grail' of AGW alarmism would be to find a conclusive link between tiny increases in CO2 and increases in water vapor so that CO2 somehow 'leverages' the global atmospheric temperature though water vapor. No such link has been found; indeed no one has even been able to postulate a credible mechanism for such a link. The water vapor cycle operates quite independently from the CO2 cycle.

If such a link did exist, then the climate system would have gone off the rails millenia ago when atmospheric CO2 level were much higher, and with such a link present, the climate would have been unable to right itself and runaway greenhouse effect would have ensued. Of course we know that didn't happen. The most recent research shows that the climate system is in fact highly stable, not exquisitely sensitive as climate alarmists would have us believe.

Jimbo

 

I align here with Jimbo and Perry. I think enough evidence has been found already to let us doubt about the anthropogenic causes of the (now dissapearing?) GW, and seriously put us to think about the increasingly probable possibility of a coming soon global cooling and its consquences for humankind.

Cheers.

 

"We have mandated cleaner air through the controls of VISIBLE pollutants,
but failed to address INVISIBLE pollutants, the green house gas's
as the atmosphere gets even clearer
and the levels of co2 and of other green house gas's rise {{{for whatever reasons}}}
the temperature also rises, fast"


at no point did I suggest that we know exactly what the mechanism for climate change is
what I do suggest is that
climate change is happening
and that we may be able to influence those changes by altering our behavior

while it is true that one volcanic eruption can pound out more co2 than all the cars can over one year
it doesnt mean that that additional equivalent of an extra volcanic eruption makes no effect on the environment

the co2 issue is up in the air
what isnt is that co2 is rising fast
and the effects of that co2 are unknown
but there is some kind of correlation

personally I think old all gore should have done his homework
he is not a scientist
and since there was conflicting info
not have used the argument in his lecture
and the Nobel committee made an error in awarding a prize
before the research was in

in the end
you are correct
co2 appears to follow not proceed co2 levels

but you have missed the point
Im not basing my statements on co2
Im basing them on the combination of criteria that we are faced with
global dimming
global warming
and simple fluid dynamics
criteria that appear to play significantly in the historical stratification of the oceans
that stratification
is considered to be the most likely cause
our two largest extinction events

the circumstances leading up to those events
appear to be existent today

the point is
that if we change our behavior
we have a chance to modify the changes that are occurring
if we do nothing
then the changes occur and we live or die with them

the first and most important thing
is that we realize things are changing
and realize that we can effect those changes

we have an opportunity
do we squander it
and go the way of the dodo
or do we make effective and beneficial change
for all

B

 

interesting point
I agree
the end result of a disturbance in the grand oceanic current may be general cooling event
that is historically known in the fossil record
but look at all the black shales we have throughout the world
all laid down in the last anaerobic event
hundreds of feet thick
so both have happened before and may happen again

however
I would point out
at no point did I suggest that this was not a possibility
I merely didnt take the events through to that degree
what I suggest is that

the criteria for another major extinction event are in place
that those criteria are presently observable
and that we appear to be influencing those factors

if we were to influence them in a different way
could we not change the system for the better
instead of for the worse

throughout my previous missive I alluded to being optimistic
I am
I genuinely feel that the hundredth monkey will wake up
and a fundamental change will occur

I lecture as harshly as I do in order to wake students up
ok Im not talking to students
but an awakening still needs to occur

but I really mean it
I think we can beat this
if we pull our heads out of our buts
admit its happening
quit bickering over why
and make effective change

I genuinely appreciate both you gentleman responding to what was
now that I reread it
a pathetic first draft

my apologies
B

Ill categorize it and try to clean it up in future

oh
taking global cooling one step further
you get total crustal shift
major catastrophe
lots of evidence for it in the fossil record
a guy named Hapgood came up with it
was friends with Al
uncle Al
and it was pretty much rejected by the community
awesome theory
imagine the globe as a spinning top
now at present there is an equatorial bulge balancing that top
what if the ice caps were to grow to such a degree
that they place more weight on the poles than what is at the equator
would the earth not topple like a spinning top unbalanced
now
I ask you
why are there frozen fruit trees in the arctic
were there isnt enough light for them to grow
and why is there a berm of frozen animals around the Taiga forest
that is still mined today for fossil ivory
how do you explain the frontus finius map or the pie riece map
( I definetly spelled that wrong )
how is it that people long ago seem to know what the land mass under the ice caps looks like

kinda a mind f@%k isnt it
but it doesnt need to happen again
we can change

 

I'm strongly in support of conserving resources and trying to minimize the impact we have on our planet.

What I am not in support of is hippies and "environmentalists" who try to use this otherwise worthwhile cause to push forward other political agendas and increase taxes whilst not doing much actual conservation work.

As said by Patrick Moore: "I think one of the most pernicious aspects of the modern environmental movement is the romanticization of peasant life. And the idea that industrial societies are the destroyers of the world. The environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries. I think it's legitimate for me to call them anti-human"

 

"other political agendas",,,hippies??????,,,,dont you mean politicians????ya know,,,the ones that in the middle of a bill about,,oh lets say enviro clean-up,,,that stick a paragraph in that states that with this clean-up bill for 100 million bucks,,,we'll hide a bill for our retirement.???
you mean THAT kind of "other" agenda??
and hippies dont raise taxes,,,,who to f@k ever heard of that???,theres 545 people in the united states that raise our taxes,,,,thats it,,,,not you,,,not me (hippie) and not anyone in this forum.
dont stick hippies in with lying politicians,,,and the next time you say i DO something,,,,be right about it.
and ANYONE that doesnt think our smokestacks and our poisons dont hurt the earth is about as smart as those politicians.

 

what really sucks is that the political push and pull game detracts from the needed meaningfully change
and is used to gain profit instead of progress

Hippies
bunch of F%^$Dng hypocrites driving suv's and livin off mummies and daddies oil wells
haveing no idea what it meant to actually be a hippie

environmentalists
little or no sense of middle ground
radicals as damaging to the cause as the profiteering oil and plastics industry

but is it radical to ask
what are we to do
when ocean fish stocks are so strained they are on the verge of collapse
and we have subsidized our population on protein from the sea
if we stop or slow down fishing
some of us starve
if we wait untill the fisheries collapse
a lot more people starve
what is more humane

what decision would lead you to say of the man
making that hard choice
he did his best