Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[BlindBoo]

The study is obvious nonsense.
Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
The current temp readings are all record highs.
At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.
Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.

The name will not matter if it truly is the beginning of a new epoch. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we'll never know.

Ha ha ha, there is no new epoch needed, that is the problem you can't handle.

What is official is already good enough, no need to add a politicized pile of bullshit in a classification scheme.

You and others have yet to show that such an addition meets the standard for inclusion anyway and I already showed you twice what is the standard is, you ignored it.

You guys are so bereft of critical thinking since there have been MANY periods of far more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last 70 years, it currently at some of the lowest values of the last 570 Million years.



View attachment 512333
You people are that stupid?

Looks like you're just dancing with yourself.

No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion.

Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm> As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal. But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The study is obvious nonsense.
Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
The current temp readings are all record highs.
At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.
Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.

Don't forget though.......

Since millions and millions of years before man ever existed this planet has gone through the same thing we're seeing right now countless times. This planet has had worldwide floods, worldwide droughts, worldwide fires, an ice age, worldwide floods, seismic activity enough to break apart land masses, total reversal of the poles, bombardment of cosmic rays, the total loss and gain of the ozone layer, bombardment by meteors, and so much more.

Earth is chaotic, it's ever changing. We have only been around a ting fraction, not long enough to actually see any of its cycles yet.

To know what has happened to earth and blame this on man when he has only been involved in heavy industry for a 100 years or so is foolish, short sighted and irresponsible.

This planet has been proven to gone through what it is now before us and way worse. The planet is just fine.

We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period.

I saw this documentary last weekend that says we are now out of the Holocene period and may be beyond the point of no return. For the first time the equilibrium of the Holocene period which gave rise to human development has shifted. We are now in the Anthropocene period.

Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org

HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

"These units are classified based on Earth’s rock layers, or strata, and the fossils found within them. From examining these fossils, scientists know that certain organisms are characteristic of certain parts of the geologic record. The study of this correlation is called stratigraphy. "

In geologic time, 1945 was like a second ago. Radiation from the atomic age will mark our geologic layer We'll never know if the layer we leave behind will mark a dramatic change in the organisms found above our layer. At least that's what I got out of the Nat Geo article I linked to.

Again this from the LEADER of the IUGS,

"From Finney & Edwards: “Workflow for approval and ratification of a Global Standard Stratotype Section and Point (GSSP) proposal. Extensive discussion and evaluation occurs at the level of the working group, subcommission, and International Commission on Stratigraphy (ICS) Bureau. If approved at these successive levels, a proposal is forwarded to the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) for ratification. This process is also followed for other ICS decisions on standardization, such as approval of names of formal units, of revisions to the units, and to revision or replacement of GSSPs.”

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016

Dr. Stanley Finney is the Secretary General of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS), which would have to ratify any formal changes to the geologic time scale."

Stop being foolish here, there is NO indication the name Anthropocene will ever be adopted since as clearly pointed out, it doesn't meet the CRITERIA for inclusion.

The name will not matter if it truly is the beginning of a new epoch. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying we'll never know.

Ha ha ha, there is no new epoch needed, that is the problem you can't handle.

What is official is already good enough, no need to add a politicized pile of bullshit in a classification scheme.

You and others have yet to show that such an addition meets the standard for inclusion anyway and I already showed you twice what is the standard is, you ignored it.

You guys are so bereft of critical thinking since there have been MANY periods of far more CO2 in the atmosphere than the last 70 years, it currently at some of the lowest values of the last 570 Million years.



View attachment 512333
You people are that stupid?

Looks like you're just dancing with yourself.

No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion.

Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm> As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal. But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption.

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

No wonder you fail to understand why the word Anthropocene is stupid!

 

[BlindBoo]

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

"We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period."

This was my first post. Which for some reason you must have forgotten because you thanked it. Haha.

To which asclepias responded......

I'd like to amend my statement too. Were are still in the current Ice Age. There have been more than one. The current interglacial period is so far, 4 to 5 degrees cooler than the last one.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

"We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period."

This was my first post. Which for some reason you must have forgotten because you thanked it. Haha.

To which asclepias responded......

I'd like to amend my statement too. Were are still in the current Ice Age. There have been more than one. The current interglacial period is so far, 4 to 5 degrees cooler than the last one.

You are indeed that fucked up since I never replied to your first post at all.

The last three posts:

1) Sunsettommy

"No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion."

===

2) Blindboo (sudden deflection)

"Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm> As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal. But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption."

===

3) Sunsettommy

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

No wonder you fail to understand why the word Anthropocene is stupid!

======

This the first post I replied to, it is YOUR post 151:

"Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene​

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org"

===

My FIRST reply to YOU at post 152 to has nothing to do with ice age stuff at all:

"HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016"

======

You are so fucking stupid since I never talked about Ice age stuff with you in this thread, I am talking about the Anthropocene nonsense the entire time.

Suggest you slink away and take your deflection bull shit with you.

 

[BlindBoo]

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

"We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period."

This was my first post. Which for some reason you must have forgotten because you thanked it. Haha.

To which asclepias responded......

I'd like to amend my statement too. Were are still in the current Ice Age. There have been more than one. The current interglacial period is so far, 4 to 5 degrees cooler than the last one.

You are indeed that fucked up since I never replied to your first post at all.

The last three posts:

1) Sunsettommy

"No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion."

===

2) Blindboo (sudden deflection)

"Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm> As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal. But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption."

===

3) Sunsettommy

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

No wonder you fail to understand why the word Anthropocene is stupid!

======

This the first post I replied to, it is YOUR post:

"Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene​

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org"

===

My FIRST reply to YOU at post 152 to has nothing to do with ice age stuff at all:

"HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016"

======

You are so fucking stupid since I never talked about Ice age stuff with you in this thread, I am talking about the Anthropocene nonsense the entire time.

Suggest you slink away and take your deflection bull shit with you.

Thanks for proving my point even further. Richard.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here is the bottom line, interestingly enough, provided through the USMB.............

https://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/more-proof-the-skeptics-are-winning.313851/

The thread above provides 8 years worth of posts/information detailing the woeful lack of progress by the climate change industry over the past 10 years.

The overall theme?

That despite 20 years of bomb throwing by the green OCD's, very little has changed on the energy landscape. Renewable energy is still decidedly fringe ( dont take my word for it........check the above thread ). So.......if the purpose of the bomb throwing was to spur the public to action, it hasnt accomplished dick! Voters dont care. Energy policy-makers arent caring. Fossil fuels still dominating.

btw.......the thread above is by miles, the most ePiC in the history of this forum. Views of it are now approaching 1/2 million . Check the number of pages/posts..........yuk....yuk.......

And remember.........in the end, it only matters who is not winning!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

"We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period."

This was my first post. Which for some reason you must have forgotten because you thanked it. Haha.

To which asclepias responded......

I'd like to amend my statement too. Were are still in the current Ice Age. There have been more than one. The current interglacial period is so far, 4 to 5 degrees cooler than the last one.

You are indeed that fucked up since I never replied to your first post at all.

The last three posts:

1) Sunsettommy

"No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion."

===

2) Blindboo (sudden deflection)

"Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm> As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal. But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption."

===

3) Sunsettommy

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

No wonder you fail to understand why the word Anthropocene is stupid!

======

This the first post I replied to, it is YOUR post:

"Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene​

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org"

===

My FIRST reply to YOU at post 152 to has nothing to do with ice age stuff at all:

"HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016"

======

You are so fucking stupid since I never talked about Ice age stuff with you in this thread, I am talking about the Anthropocene nonsense the entire time.

Suggest you slink away and take your deflection bull shit with you.

Thanks for proving my point even further. Richard.

You as usual fail to be honest in your reply since you DEFLECTED from the Anthropocene argument in the first place and you didn't counter the post that exposed you as a bald faced liar.

I wonder if you have been drinking all morning.

 

[BlindBoo]

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

"We're still in the Ice Age. The Holocene period, when the glaciers retreated. Not the first inter glacial period of the Ice age, just the most recent. Temperatures have risen as high as they've ever been during this period."

This was my first post. Which for some reason you must have forgotten because you thanked it. Haha.

To which asclepias responded......

I'd like to amend my statement too. Were are still in the current Ice Age. There have been more than one. The current interglacial period is so far, 4 to 5 degrees cooler than the last one.

You are indeed that fucked up since I never replied to your first post at all.

The last three posts:

1) Sunsettommy

"No it is your inability to understand what is actually going on, you fell for a stupid idea that doesn't meet the guideline on it, showed why too, you ignored it as the warmist/alarmist moron you are because you don't know jack shit about it.

The Person who wrote the article is a GEOLOGIST and a member of the organization under discussion."

===

2) Blindboo (sudden deflection)

"Yeah National Geographic knows nothing about geology or geophysics. <\sarcasm> As I pointed out to the poster who saw a program on the topic and brought it up, it is merely a proposal. But you for some reason or another choose not to actually read what was posted and continue on with your asinine assumption."

===

3) Sunsettommy

Now you are simply LYING!

You didn't even read the post 146 at all, it has NOTHING to do with NG at all you blind fuck!

No wonder you fail to understand why the word Anthropocene is stupid!

======

This the first post I replied to, it is YOUR post:

"Thanks.

The primary question that the IUGS needs to answer before declaring the Anthropocene an epoch is if humans have changed the Earth system to the point that it is reflected in the rock strata.

To those scientists who do think the Anthropocene describes a new geological time period, the next question is, when did it begin, which also has been widely debated. A popular theory is that it began at the start of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, when human activity had a great impact on carbon and methane in Earth’s atmosphere. Others think that the beginning of the Anthropocene should be 1945. This is when humans tested the first atomic bomb, and then dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The resulting radioactive particles were detected in soil samples globally.

In 2016, the Anthropocene Working Group agreed that the Anthropocene is different from the Holocene, and began in the year 1950 when the Great Acceleration, a dramatic increase in human activity affecting the planet, took off.

Anthropocene​

The Anthropocene Epoch is an unofficial unit of geologic time, used to describe the most recent period in Earth’s history when human activity started to have a significant impact on the planet’s climate and ecosystems.

www.nationalgeographic.org"

===

My FIRST reply to YOU at post 152 to has nothing to do with ice age stuff at all:

"HA HA HA,

again do I have to point out that it is a proposal that doesn't meet the definition of what is an epoch, I showed at POST 146 is nonsense.

The utility of the Anthropocene requires careful consideration by its various potential users. Its concept is fundamentally different from the chronostratigraphic units that are established by ICS in that the documentation and study of the human impact on the Earth system are based more on direct human observation than on a stratigraphic record. The drive to officially recognize the Anthropocene may, in fact, be political rather than scientific.
Finney & Edwards, 2016"

======

You are so fucking stupid since I never talked about Ice age stuff with you in this thread, I am talking about the Anthropocene nonsense the entire time.

Suggest you slink away and take your deflection bull shit with you.

Thanks for proving my point even further. Richard.

You as usual fail to be honest in your reply since you DEFLECTED from the Anthropocene argument in the first place and you didn't counter the post that exposed you as a bald faced liar.

I wonder if you have been drinking all morning.

There is no argument. You pretending there is one is just you being an asshole.

 

[MisterBeale]

...

Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...​

Conclusion We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

Direct link to the study:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies.
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.
This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect."

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover "practically" controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland's Turku University team:
We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.
This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries' populations.

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "drastic measures to cut carbon emissions" which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to "remake the U.S. economy" would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn't even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC's "drastic measures" in perspective — based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:
“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.”
Which leads the scientists to state further:
“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.
And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:
This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.
Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: "The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models."

"If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice," the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study) — including AOC's call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it's too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And "too late" that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future "global warming Armageddon" as the currently in vogue highly politicized "science" of activists and congress members alike claims.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...exist-practice

is this where one of the board left wing mods says this is a wall of text and it isn't political?

Actually everything is political. Especially man made climate change.

Has little to do with with actual weather.

I find it really interesting that the zerohedge link was deleted and/or moved.

You did a great service by copying it here.

Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Research teams in Finland & Japan conclude "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after series of studies.

web.archive.org

I have always known that the greatest amount of warming gas was water vapor, and that natural processes contributed far greater amounts of CO2 the human activities.

Thus, the whole theory seemed suspect to me.

Likewise, most intelligent folks know that the natural rise in CO2 always followed the rise in temperature.

Everything about the climate lie is and was as phony as the COVID lie.

 

[MisterBeale]

There is no argument. You pretending there is one is just you being an asshole.

There is, sort of an argument.

All he is doing, is pointing out, that Anthropocene, is a propaganda term. . . it is junk science.

It is meant to make the masses believe that we have more power over the entire planet's future than we actually do, so that global elite's can convince the plebes to consent to a world government.


And he schooled you as to why the propaganda is nonsense. . .

Stop believing billion dollar transnational corporate lies, dressed up as junk science, in the place of facts.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I think if it comes to pass it is too late. Kind of like trying to buy health insurance from the ambulance taking you to the hospital. What you should do is pay for insurance and hope you never need it.

So what would you like to do to combat an unprecedented and anomalous rise in sea levels?
And what other one of a kind disasters would you like to change society over?
Simply eliminate all coastal societies?
Place canopys over all of society to prevent a one in a billion collision with a comet that no man made
device could prevent anyway?

Sensible precautions are one things. Trying to protect yourself against unforeseeable and unstoppable
disasters are another. Life on this planet is not guaranteed. Ask a brontosaurus, if you can find one.

You adapt. Being adaptable is the reason Homo Sapiens is the apex predator on Earth.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is no argument. You pretending there is one is just you being an asshole.

There is, sort of an argument.

All he is doing, is pointing out, that Anthropocene, is a propaganda term. . . it is junk science.

It is meant to make the masses believe that we have more power over the entire planet's future than we actually do, so that global elite's can convince the plebes to consent to a world government.


And he schooled you as to why the propaganda is nonsense. . .

Stop believing billion dollar transnational corporate lies, dressed up as junk science, in the place of facts.

Then you say we are still in the Holocene?

Reinventing History again still I C.

Anthropocene: The journey to a new geological epoch

The impact of human beings on the planet is so severe and so enduring that the current geological time period could soon be declared the "Anthropocene".

www.carbonbrief.org

"The announcement was the product of years of work and, arguably, arrived on the shoulders of centuries of scientific and philosophical grappling with the idea of humanity’s role in shaping the world.

Even so, the Anthropocene is far from becoming a formal piece of the geological jigsaw. While the idea has been seized enthusiastically by many in the fields of science and beyond, there are some who question the validity of naming a new epoch after humanity.

History​

Antonio Stoppani is often cited as the first person to suggest that the current geological epoch should be defined by the influence of humans. Formerly a Catholic priest, the Italian professor had turned to geology after he was expelled from the seminary where he taught grammar for his political fervour.

Stoppani saw the footprints of humanity everywhere: it had carved the paths of rivers, mined the Alps, dammed the ocean and built cities. “The Anthropozoic era has begun: geologists cannot predict its end at all,” he wrote in his 1873 work Corso di Geologia. And while the so-called Anthropozoic era might have only lasted a “handful of centuries” so far, he predicted that our species’ influence would continue long into the future.

His ideas may have been influenced by American conservationist George Perkins Marsh, who was ambassador to Italy at the time, although Marsh himself acknowledges that Stoppani went further than he ever did.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, more geologists played with the idea of introducing humanity into the sequence of geological time periods."

...............

One thing I am certain of, if it is, we will never know if it is or not.

 

[Mac-7]

Then watch as these charalatans' attempt gets laughed out of peer review.

Why do you call them charlatans?

Just because you dont like their science?

 

[Rigby5]

Your ilk told us we would be out of oil already.

In the 60s, some US cars only got 10 mpg.
It is likely the fact cars mostly now get over 30 mpg that slowed the use of oil.
Mass transit as well.
{... (Amtrak was) Founded in 1971 as a quasi-public corporation to operate many U.S. passenger rail routes. ...}
Imagine if people had not been pushing for higher CAFE standards?
And while the US may not have done that much, the rest of the world has done a lot more, and they likely are the ones who pushed back the date as to when we will be out of oil.
Another factor is we are now also doing deep ocean drilling of oil that no one anticipated we would ever be able to do.

But regardless of when, clearly we have to run out of fossil fuel eventually.

 

[Rigby5]

We knew the left would celebrate over the high temperatures in the west. So, the GLOBAL WARMING has caused record temperatures in a SPECIFIC AREA on the globe and NOT OTHER AREAS?

LOL

Over a six-day period during the middle of June 2021, a dome of hot air languished over the western United States, causing temperatures to skyrocket. From June 15-20, all-time maximum temperature records fell at locations in seven different states (CA, AZ, NM, UT, CO, WY, MT). In Phoenix, Arizona, the high temperature was over 115 degrees for a record-setting six consecutive days, topping out at 118 degrees on June 17.


That is what caused the heat wave. Not cow farts.

Record-breaking June 2021 heatwave impacts the U.S. West

An early summer heatwave across the drought-stricken West smashed records in seven states as temperatures cleared 100 degrees Fahrenheit for days on end.

www.climate.gov

You are only describing weather.
And weather is a product of energy, which is greatly effected by climate, such as global warming.

If your point is that it is hard to prove a correlation between a change in weather and a change in global climate, that is true.
But the graphs of the weather over the last century show a marked global warming trend that is much faster than any normal or natural trend.

 

[the other mike]

Reducing our use of fossil fuels, whether it helps to slow climate change or not isn't as relevant as keeping the environment clean.

The left needs to focus on more urgent issues right now like the growing emergency water shortages in the SW.

 

[BlindBoo]

In the 60s, some US cars only got 10 mpg.
It is likely the fact cars mostly now get over 30 mpg that slowed the use of oil.
Mass transit as well.
{... (Amtrak was) Founded in 1971 as a quasi-public corporation to operate many U.S. passenger rail routes. ...}
Imagine if people had not been pushing for higher CAFE standards?
And while the US may not have done that much, the rest of the world has done a lot more, and they likely are the ones who pushed back the date as to when we will be out of oil.
Another factor is we are now also doing deep ocean drilling of oil that no one anticipated we would ever be able to do.

But regardless of when, clearly we have to run out of fossil fuel eventually.

Peak Oil was always a major canard. Just like the climate tipping point, a moving target.

 

[TRUGRIT]

This may be true, maybe not, I don't know enough to say, but I'm not sure why it matters. If the sea level rises because of natural or manmade reasons, the sea level still rises and that would spell disaster for many.

It matters because if the new studies are correct global warming is a natural event and not manmade. So therefore there is nothing we can do to affect the effects.

 

[Sunsettommy]

You are only describing weather.
And weather is a product of energy, which is greatly effected by climate, such as global warming.

If your point is that it is hard to prove a correlation between a change in weather and a change in global climate, that is true.
But the graphs of the weather over the last century show a marked global warming trend that is much faster than any normal or natural trend.

No isn't must faster than any normal or natural trend, gee that un sourced chart that ends in year 2010 has only 130 years out of 1 BILLION years of weather/Climate to draw from.



Meanwhile Dr. Jones doesn't agree with you:

BBC

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones​

Saturday, 13 February 2010

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

=====

You are clearly wrong and you seem oblivious to the fact that it has been cooling for years now, how come you are that unaware of it?

 

[TRUGRIT]

The study is obvious nonsense.
Of course cosmic rays can cause clouds which can retain heat at night, but during the day, clouds increase albedo, which cools the climate.
And cosmic rays have NOT changed.
We constantly measure them and they have not increased while temperature has.
The current temp readings are all record highs.
At this point is it incredibly foolish to claim we are not causing global warming.
Some cities in Canada reached over 130 degrees, and hundreds have died from the increased heat.

You can't actually be that stupid. Every year the earth moves closer to the sun ( which is a measurable phenomenon ). The closer we get the stronger the cosmic rays become. So how do you explain while parts of the world are experiencing higher than normal temperatures other parts are experiencing lower than normal temperatures? If it were global warming then the whole planet should be being affected equally.