CDZ Questions regarding "Climate Change"

[gfm7175]

So Climate Change is just another word for Global Warming?

It's a circularly-defined buzzword which allows them to apply it to ANY weather situation, not just "warming" specifically. Global Warming is also a circularly-defined buzzword. Neither word holds any meaning outside of itself.

If so, is there clear and quantifiable evidence that the Earth as a whole is warming?

No, there is not.

There is no way to accurately measure "global temperature". Claiming that there is ends up rejecting both science and mathematics. Going the land-based thermometer route, it is mathematics that is being rejected. First, one needs to declare how many thermometers they are using. NASA claims approx. 7,500 of them, so let's use that number. Second, they need to be uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer [to avoid location and time biases]. They are NOT spaced/read this way, but for argument's sake, let's just say that they are. Third, range/variances need to be declared. Regarding temperatures, the possible range is currently 262deg F [-128deg F low, 134deg F high]. Temperatures have also been known to vary by as much as 20degF per MILE, and 49deg F per TWO MINUTES (showing how close we need each thermometer and how all thermometers need to be simultaneously read by the same observer). Fourth, we need to plug these numbers into the situation. Now, Earth has some 197 million sq miles of surface area, so to only use 7,500 thermometers would amount to any single thermometer covering a surface area of approx. 26,000 sq miles, or approx. an area the size of West Virginia. Now, can ALL of W. Virginia be accurately measured with a single thermometer?? I think not... In fact, in order to bring the margin of error down to +-10deg F, we would need at least 200 million thermometers.

Going the satellite route instead for "global temperature" rejects science. Satellites don't measure absolute temperature; they measure light. That light reading would then need to be converted into a temperature reading. The problem with this, however, is that the emissivity of Earth is unknown. We don't know how much light is a result of Earth's emission nor how much light is a result of the reflections of other things, such as sunlight/starlight... And, in order to figure out Earth's emissivity, we need to first know the answer to what we are looking for to begin with, Earth's temperature. Chicken and Egg.

 

[sartre play]

Making it political has killed any chance of getting any balanced information on what may or may not be happening.

 

[SSDD]

Making it political has killed any chance of getting any balanced information on what may or may not be happening.

The actual evidence...and lack of evidence is out there....

For example, spend an hour or so checking regional temperature historical records. pick a region of the globe, and simply look at the temperature history of that region. in most cases, you will see little variation over the past couple of hundred years beyond the expected temperature increase one would expect exiting from the little ice age. In a few regions you will see some warming greater than others, and in a few regions you will see cooling. Copy the charts. Now compare what the regional records tell you about the temperature across the globe with the mainstream global temperature record. A record that has been so heavily manipulated, massaged, homogenized, and infilled that it has become worse than useless.

Hell, the frauds at NASA are now adjusting the "unadjusted" data in order to create warmer "unadjusted" data...

 

[sartre play]

Just call it pollution, & work hard to get as much as possible cleaned up. stop making or breaking laws already in place to make more money for big business.

 

[sakinago]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

1) The climate is always changing.. Always has.. And the Earth does not have a single climate zone. The thermodynamics and weather system are too complicated to be understood in terms of "Global" climate.

2) There is about a 1degC "blip" in temp rise over the past 100 years or so. It comes directly after the "Little Ice Age" that froze the knickers off of our earliest American settlers. There is not any ACCURATE way of finding 1 degC blips that occur in 50 to 100 year spans in ANCIENT climate history, so we don't actually KNOW if this modern measured event is even rare or unexpected...

3) CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.. It's not even the PRINCIPAL GHGas -- Water vapor is.. So it does affect the Earth's surface temp equilibrium.. From basic Physics and Chemistry, the amount of expected temp rise from a doubling of CO2 in the atmos is about 1.1degC... The amount of CO2 in the atmos has not even REACHED a doubling since the Industrial Revolution.. (now 400 ppm versus 280 ppm in 1900 or so)

And Global Warming theory ADDS a bunch of speculative notions about that physic limit that is NOT settled science. These include speculations about "runaway warming effects" and the existing of primarily "positive feedbacks".. It's THOSE elements of speculation that STOKED the original fear and propaganda that EXAGGERATED the actual science as its been done..

So far -- since we've had modern instrumentation and satellites in space to measure these things -- the warming rate OBSERVED has been much closer to the "basic Physics/Chem estimate than it has to the modeling that INCLUDES the "catastrophic" aspects of GW theory..

It's a problem maybe. But NOT our "world war" or biggest crisis for humanity...

Come on Flacaltenn, there you go being deceptive. We can’t use satellite instrumentation, because atmosphere. And it would put a lot of marine/climate “scientists” out of business. Sure our infrared measurements on satellites can tell us how many planets, the size and distances of planets, and a likely atmospheric makeup of those planets in solar systems dozens of light years away....but they can’t measure something as complicated as the temperature on earth.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

1) The climate is always changing.. Always has.. And the Earth does not have a single climate zone. The thermodynamics and weather system are too complicated to be understood in terms of "Global" climate.

2) There is about a 1degC "blip" in temp rise over the past 100 years or so. It comes directly after the "Little Ice Age" that froze the knickers off of our earliest American settlers. There is not any ACCURATE way of finding 1 degC blips that occur in 50 to 100 year spans in ANCIENT climate history, so we don't actually KNOW if this modern measured event is even rare or unexpected...

3) CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.. It's not even the PRINCIPAL GHGas -- Water vapor is.. So it does affect the Earth's surface temp equilibrium.. From basic Physics and Chemistry, the amount of expected temp rise from a doubling of CO2 in the atmos is about 1.1degC... The amount of CO2 in the atmos has not even REACHED a doubling since the Industrial Revolution.. (now 400 ppm versus 280 ppm in 1900 or so)

And Global Warming theory ADDS a bunch of speculative notions about that physic limit that is NOT settled science. These include speculations about "runaway warming effects" and the existing of primarily "positive feedbacks".. It's THOSE elements of speculation that STOKED the original fear and propaganda that EXAGGERATED the actual science as its been done..

So far -- since we've had modern instrumentation and satellites in space to measure these things -- the warming rate OBSERVED has been much closer to the "basic Physics/Chem estimate than it has to the modeling that INCLUDES the "catastrophic" aspects of GW theory..

It's a problem maybe. But NOT our "world war" or biggest crisis for humanity...

Come on Flacaltenn, there you go being deceptive. We can’t use satellite instrumentation, because atmosphere. And it would put a lot of marine/climate “scientists” out of business. Sure our infrared measurements on satellites can tell us how many planets, the size and distances of planets, and a likely atmospheric makeup of those planets in solar systems dozens of light years away....but they can’t measure something as complicated as the temperature on earth.

That's great satire of a very sad situation.. Until we got instrumentation into space, things like observing the sun total irradiation and spectrum were "iffy" because the vital parameters were filtered by an unknown and chaotic atmosphere.. Even measuring the GHouse effects was not a pure observation. Used to drag spectrometers and other instruments up to the highest mountain tops to try and reduce the unknowns..

But it IS sad that a place at NASA called the Goddard Institute for SPACE SCIENCE -- still prefers networks of 20,000, badly positioned and distributed surface thermometers to relying on the fleet of microwave beam synchronized satellites they have at their disposal for measuring earth surface temperature..

The ability to scan ALL the layers of atmos for GW would seem to be attractive to SPACE SCIENTISTS... Especially because all those altitude corrections for surface thermometer mounted 10 ft above the ground leads to guessing about micro-climates and the results are not really measuring the full effect of warming the atmos at all altitudes...

They prefer diddling the land/sea data to actual "SPACE Science"...

 

[sakinago]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

1) The climate is always changing.. Always has.. And the Earth does not have a single climate zone. The thermodynamics and weather system are too complicated to be understood in terms of "Global" climate.

2) There is about a 1degC "blip" in temp rise over the past 100 years or so. It comes directly after the "Little Ice Age" that froze the knickers off of our earliest American settlers. There is not any ACCURATE way of finding 1 degC blips that occur in 50 to 100 year spans in ANCIENT climate history, so we don't actually KNOW if this modern measured event is even rare or unexpected...

3) CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.. It's not even the PRINCIPAL GHGas -- Water vapor is.. So it does affect the Earth's surface temp equilibrium.. From basic Physics and Chemistry, the amount of expected temp rise from a doubling of CO2 in the atmos is about 1.1degC... The amount of CO2 in the atmos has not even REACHED a doubling since the Industrial Revolution.. (now 400 ppm versus 280 ppm in 1900 or so)

And Global Warming theory ADDS a bunch of speculative notions about that physic limit that is NOT settled science. These include speculations about "runaway warming effects" and the existing of primarily "positive feedbacks".. It's THOSE elements of speculation that STOKED the original fear and propaganda that EXAGGERATED the actual science as its been done..

So far -- since we've had modern instrumentation and satellites in space to measure these things -- the warming rate OBSERVED has been much closer to the "basic Physics/Chem estimate than it has to the modeling that INCLUDES the "catastrophic" aspects of GW theory..

It's a problem maybe. But NOT our "world war" or biggest crisis for humanity...

Come on Flacaltenn, there you go being deceptive. We can’t use satellite instrumentation, because atmosphere. And it would put a lot of marine/climate “scientists” out of business. Sure our infrared measurements on satellites can tell us how many planets, the size and distances of planets, and a likely atmospheric makeup of those planets in solar systems dozens of light years away....but they can’t measure something as complicated as the temperature on earth.

That's great satire of a very sad situation.. Until we got instrumentation into space, things like observing the sun total irradiation and spectrum were "iffy" because the vital parameters were filtered by an unknown and chaotic atmosphere.. Even measuring the GHouse effects was not a pure observation. Used to drag spectrometers and other instruments up to the highest mountain tops to try and reduce the unknowns..

But it IS sad that a place at NASA called the Goddard Institute for SPACE SCIENCE -- still prefers networks of 20,000, badly positioned and distributed surface thermometers to relying on the fleet of microwave beam synchronized satellites they have at their disposal for measuring earth surface temperature..

The ability to scan ALL the layers of atmos for GW would seem to be attractive to SPACE SCIENTISTS... Especially because all those altitude corrections for surface thermometer mounted 10 ft above the ground leads to guessing about micro-climates and the results are not really measuring the full effect of warming the atmos at all altitudes...

They prefer diddling the land/sea data to actual "SPACE Science"...

I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and tried to research further to find something more than, “the atmosphere throws off satellite readings,”...I found a power point presentation, with a single slide, that just basically reiterated “atmosphere throws off satellite readings,” in more scientific language, from Goddard (I believe). Even if what they say is true, it doesn’t explain why satellites wouldn’t be able to pick up on a warming trend.

It is truly a sad situation.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Making it political has killed any chance of getting any balanced information on what may or may not be happening.

Exactly, they crossed the line and made fools out of themselves starting in the 1970's (Well way earlier then that if you count around 1900) and continue to do so to this day.






.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

1) The climate is always changing.. Always has.. And the Earth does not have a single climate zone. The thermodynamics and weather system are too complicated to be understood in terms of "Global" climate.

2) There is about a 1degC "blip" in temp rise over the past 100 years or so. It comes directly after the "Little Ice Age" that froze the knickers off of our earliest American settlers. There is not any ACCURATE way of finding 1 degC blips that occur in 50 to 100 year spans in ANCIENT climate history, so we don't actually KNOW if this modern measured event is even rare or unexpected...

3) CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.. It's not even the PRINCIPAL GHGas -- Water vapor is.. So it does affect the Earth's surface temp equilibrium.. From basic Physics and Chemistry, the amount of expected temp rise from a doubling of CO2 in the atmos is about 1.1degC... The amount of CO2 in the atmos has not even REACHED a doubling since the Industrial Revolution.. (now 400 ppm versus 280 ppm in 1900 or so)

And Global Warming theory ADDS a bunch of speculative notions about that physic limit that is NOT settled science. These include speculations about "runaway warming effects" and the existing of primarily "positive feedbacks".. It's THOSE elements of speculation that STOKED the original fear and propaganda that EXAGGERATED the actual science as its been done..

So far -- since we've had modern instrumentation and satellites in space to measure these things -- the warming rate OBSERVED has been much closer to the "basic Physics/Chem estimate than it has to the modeling that INCLUDES the "catastrophic" aspects of GW theory..

It's a problem maybe. But NOT our "world war" or biggest crisis for humanity...

Come on Flacaltenn, there you go being deceptive. We can’t use satellite instrumentation, because atmosphere. And it would put a lot of marine/climate “scientists” out of business. Sure our infrared measurements on satellites can tell us how many planets, the size and distances of planets, and a likely atmospheric makeup of those planets in solar systems dozens of light years away....but they can’t measure something as complicated as the temperature on earth.

That's great satire of a very sad situation.. Until we got instrumentation into space, things like observing the sun total irradiation and spectrum were "iffy" because the vital parameters were filtered by an unknown and chaotic atmosphere.. Even measuring the GHouse effects was not a pure observation. Used to drag spectrometers and other instruments up to the highest mountain tops to try and reduce the unknowns..

But it IS sad that a place at NASA called the Goddard Institute for SPACE SCIENCE -- still prefers networks of 20,000, badly positioned and distributed surface thermometers to relying on the fleet of microwave beam synchronized satellites they have at their disposal for measuring earth surface temperature..

The ability to scan ALL the layers of atmos for GW would seem to be attractive to SPACE SCIENTISTS... Especially because all those altitude corrections for surface thermometer mounted 10 ft above the ground leads to guessing about micro-climates and the results are not really measuring the full effect of warming the atmos at all altitudes...

They prefer diddling the land/sea data to actual "SPACE Science"...

I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and tried to research further to find something more than, “the atmosphere throws off satellite readings,”...I found a power point presentation, with a single slide, that just basically reiterated “atmosphere throws off satellite readings,” in more scientific language, from Goddard (I believe). Even if what they say is true, it doesn’t explain why satellites wouldn’t be able to pick up on a warming trend.

It is truly a sad situation.

They're upset because the satellites actually MEASURE the atmosphere and not just 10 ft above the surface. If GW is caused by increased GHouse "insulation" -- measuring a wider chunk of atmosphere is more convincing... Too many surface, micro-climate, urban heating, altitude correction issues with thermometers 10 ft above the ground.

Don't know how the atmosphere can throw off satellite temperature readings for GW because they are used to produce an "anomaly" record that is NOT an ABSOLUTE temperature anyways.. Take a look at any of them. They are "relative changes" in temperature from day to day and year to year -- not ABSOLUTE temps...

 

[sakinago]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

1) The climate is always changing.. Always has.. And the Earth does not have a single climate zone. The thermodynamics and weather system are too complicated to be understood in terms of "Global" climate.

2) There is about a 1degC "blip" in temp rise over the past 100 years or so. It comes directly after the "Little Ice Age" that froze the knickers off of our earliest American settlers. There is not any ACCURATE way of finding 1 degC blips that occur in 50 to 100 year spans in ANCIENT climate history, so we don't actually KNOW if this modern measured event is even rare or unexpected...

3) CO2 is a GreenHouse gas.. It's not even the PRINCIPAL GHGas -- Water vapor is.. So it does affect the Earth's surface temp equilibrium.. From basic Physics and Chemistry, the amount of expected temp rise from a doubling of CO2 in the atmos is about 1.1degC... The amount of CO2 in the atmos has not even REACHED a doubling since the Industrial Revolution.. (now 400 ppm versus 280 ppm in 1900 or so)

And Global Warming theory ADDS a bunch of speculative notions about that physic limit that is NOT settled science. These include speculations about "runaway warming effects" and the existing of primarily "positive feedbacks".. It's THOSE elements of speculation that STOKED the original fear and propaganda that EXAGGERATED the actual science as its been done..

So far -- since we've had modern instrumentation and satellites in space to measure these things -- the warming rate OBSERVED has been much closer to the "basic Physics/Chem estimate than it has to the modeling that INCLUDES the "catastrophic" aspects of GW theory..

It's a problem maybe. But NOT our "world war" or biggest crisis for humanity...

Come on Flacaltenn, there you go being deceptive. We can’t use satellite instrumentation, because atmosphere. And it would put a lot of marine/climate “scientists” out of business. Sure our infrared measurements on satellites can tell us how many planets, the size and distances of planets, and a likely atmospheric makeup of those planets in solar systems dozens of light years away....but they can’t measure something as complicated as the temperature on earth.

That's great satire of a very sad situation.. Until we got instrumentation into space, things like observing the sun total irradiation and spectrum were "iffy" because the vital parameters were filtered by an unknown and chaotic atmosphere.. Even measuring the GHouse effects was not a pure observation. Used to drag spectrometers and other instruments up to the highest mountain tops to try and reduce the unknowns..

But it IS sad that a place at NASA called the Goddard Institute for SPACE SCIENCE -- still prefers networks of 20,000, badly positioned and distributed surface thermometers to relying on the fleet of microwave beam synchronized satellites they have at their disposal for measuring earth surface temperature..

The ability to scan ALL the layers of atmos for GW would seem to be attractive to SPACE SCIENTISTS... Especially because all those altitude corrections for surface thermometer mounted 10 ft above the ground leads to guessing about micro-climates and the results are not really measuring the full effect of warming the atmos at all altitudes...

They prefer diddling the land/sea data to actual "SPACE Science"...

I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and tried to research further to find something more than, “the atmosphere throws off satellite readings,”...I found a power point presentation, with a single slide, that just basically reiterated “atmosphere throws off satellite readings,” in more scientific language, from Goddard (I believe). Even if what they say is true, it doesn’t explain why satellites wouldn’t be able to pick up on a warming trend.

It is truly a sad situation.

They're upset because the satellites actually MEASURE the atmosphere and not just 10 ft above the surface. If GW is caused by increased GHouse "insulation" -- measuring a wider chunk of atmosphere is more convincing... Too many surface, micro-climate, urban heating, altitude correction issues with thermometers 10 ft above the ground.

Don't know how the atmosphere can throw off satellite temperature readings for GW because they are used to produce an "anomaly" record that is NOT an ABSOLUTE temperature anyways.. Take a look at any of them. They are "relative changes" in temperature from day to day and year to year -- not ABSOLUTE temps...

Oh, hi there spirit animal named flacaltenn, nice to meet you.

 

[abu afak]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

In the current debate it refers to Global Warming.
Virtually everyone agrees there Is GW. (tho a few loonies don't)
The only debate is whether it just happens to be coincidence/natural cycle or human caused: aka, "AGW".
Just 'Coincident' with the rise since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution/CO2 Emissions? No.

but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]




EDIT to below
It's 100% NUTBAG "Chemtrails" Conspiracism pictures regularly posted in Climate threads.
You can thank mods for continually allowing this.

EDIT2
Then below it you have yet MORE Conspiracy garbage.. not even a linked "quote".
In fact, it's a MISQUOTE from 'the Club of Rome.'.
Then more 50 yr old garbage from who knows where: 'iron mountain report'!


`

 

[Dale Smith]

1. What, exactly, is "Climate Change?"

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

3. How is it related to increased CO2 in the atmosphere?

Please feel free to expound...

In the current debate it refers to Global Warming.
Virtually everyone agrees there Is GW. (tho a few loonies here don't)
The only debate is whether it just happens to be coincidence/natural cycle or human caused: aka, "AGW".
Just 'Coincident' with the rise since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution/CO2 Emissions

but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others.

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/04/.../how-we-know-climate-change-is-not-natural/Apr 4, 2017 - Last week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, chaired by climate contrarian Lamar Smith, R-Texas, held a hearing on ...

How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate ...
www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycleNov 7, 2009 - Answer. If the Earth's temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would ...

How do we know? - Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of ...
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. ...Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up .... the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the ...

Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htmHowever, internal forces do not cause climate change. ... and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but ...
[.....]
How Do We Know Humans Are Causing Climate Change? | Climate ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/.../how-do-we-know-humans-are-causing-climat...Feb 1, 2019 - Yes, we know humans are responsible for the climate changewe see ... as if we're wrapping another, not-so-natural blanket around the Earth.

Global warming isn't just a natural cycle » Yale Climate Connections
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/.../global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle/Sep 18, 2018 - Here's how we know that. ... Global warming isn't just anatural cycle. By Sara Peach on Sep ... The earth's temperature changesnaturally over time. Variations ... Earth's warming: How scientists know it'snot the sun. From Yale ...

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global ...
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science.../human-contribution-to-gw-faq.htmlJump to Natural and human factors that influence the climate (known as ...- Natural climate drivers include the energy ... in snow and ice cover thatchange how much ... if it were not for these human-made and natural tiny particles.

[.....]
`

Climate change in the form of geo-engineering.....goes on all over the world.

 

[Dale Smith]

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

Club of Rome

 

[Dale Smith]

When it comes to postulating a credible substitute for war … the “alternate enemy” must imply a more immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction. It must justify the need for taking and paying a “blood price” in wide areas of human concern. In this respect, the possible substitute enemies noted earlier would be insufficient. One exception might be the environmental-pollution model, if the danger to society it posed was genuinely imminent. The fictive models would have to carry the weight of extraordinary conviction, underscored with a not inconsiderable actual sacrifice of life. … It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. …

It is true that the rate of pollution could be increased selectively for this purpose. … But the pollution problem has been so widely publicized in recent years that it seems highly improbable that a program of deliberate environmental poisoning could be implemented in a politically acceptable manner.

However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented. (8)

The Iron Mountain Report, 1967.

 

[SSDD]

About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds)
Search Results
Web results

I did a search for dragons...and got 1,890,000,000 results in 0.05 seconds.

Does that mean that dragons are more than twice as real as AGW?

 

[sparky]

2. What quantifiable evidence of it exists?

For those of you who actually get out into nature and observe it closely, plenty

For those that respect sience, plenty

For those of you wishing to parrot the oilocracy, never enough

~S~

 

[abu afak]

I did a search for dragons...and got 1,890,000,000 results in 0.05 seconds.

Does that mean that dragons are more than twice as real as AGW?

Duh...Forget the number.
Did you get, Columbia, Yale, UCS, NASA, etc, etc, saying there WERE dragons?
ooooph.
`

 

[SSDD]

I did a search for dragons...and got 1,890,000,000 results in 0.05 seconds.

Does that mean that dragons are more than twice as real as AGW?

Duh...Forget the number.
Did you get, Columbia, Yale, UCS, NASA, etc, etc, saying there WERE dragons?
ooooph.
`

Step on up to the plate and provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Of course you won't...because no such evidence exists.. The only question is what excuse will you give for not providing any such evidence? Try for something original...the same old same old has become very boring over the years...

 

[abu afak]

Step on up to the plate and provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Of course you won't...because no such evidence exists.. The only question is what excuse will you give for not providing any such evidence? Try for something original...the same old same old has become very boring over the years...

So having busted SSDD on the wildly wrong-headed ^*%&^(*^^% number of 'dragons h!ts' try...

I provided Extensive and Expert evidence at the top of this page. All use measurements of things like CO2, Solar output, etc, within.
Even you saw it (kinda).. but tried to mischaracterize the post for it's number of hits rather than it's impressive meat.
Gameover, but you'll keep on posting.
`

 

[SSDD]

So having busted SSDD on the wildly wrong-headed ^*%&^(*^^% number of 'dragons h!ts' try...

You are the doofus who suggested that the number of hits google provides has something to do with the legitimacy of a claim....clearly it doesn't.

I provided Extensive and Expert evidence at the top of this page. All use measurements of things like CO2, Solar output, etc, within. Even you saw it (kinda).. but tried to mischaracterize the post for it's number of hits rather than it's impressive meat.
Gameover, but you'll keep on posting.
`

What you didn't do is provide a single piece of observed measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...what you provided was some evidence of climate change with some very large assumptions tacked on...nothing like actual observed measured evidence which supports AGW over natural variability.

If you would like to point out anything particular within your opinion pieces, I will be glad to explain to you how you got duped by "evidence" which really wasn't...