The Challenge of Climate Change...

[abu afak]

It seems these days, a lot of folks are obsessed with a phenomenon called "Climate Change". Apparently, as the phenomenon is explained, human beings are directly impacting the climate of The Earth in a way that will cause all life on Earth to go extinct in a fairly short time (historically speaking).

Extinct won't happen, huge dislocation will. When is the question.

Like many beliefs, the belief in catastrophic climate change is based partly on observation and partly on indoctrination. The percentage of those parts vary differently from individual to individual.

And that belief is apparently ZERO with you, as you cannot elucidate it and why.
You merely try and triangulate to somewhere in the middle 'reasonable' ('uncatastrophic') because in fact you Know nothing.

Like most beliefs, there is an important drive in believers to make sure as many people as possible believe in the exact same thing. Those who can't be convinced to believe must be marginalized as "anti the belief", a "denier" of the belief", infidel, apostate, heretic, are also frequently used. The purpose of the marginalization is to assure that the tenets of the belief cannot be challenged, as anyone who might challenge the belief is already labeled and their input is therefore invalid.

Mere "Belief" (the term you constantly abuse) is for things like Religion, not science/Evidence based acknowledgement of Data.
I 'believe' in evolution too, another Evidence-based Theory.

As for the belief in catastrophic climate change, it is pointless to argue the minutiae of the belief such as variations in global temperature, percentage of gasses in the atmosphere, and predictions on how these may or may not affect humans on the world. It's pointless because there is no way for a normal individual to verify or disprove claims. They must be taken as articles of faith. Another reason they are pointless is that they don't change the fundamental questions of, "What is actually going on?", "What, if anything, do we do to change what is going on?, and, most important, "Is anything we actually do going to have an overall net positive or negative effect on humans?".

It's akin to arguing, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", before you've established the existence of angels and if they do in fact actually dance.[/B]

You have to Define what you think "catastrophic' is and what you are accusing others believing it is. ("Extinction" is a strawman)
You're a Fraud.

You can:
A) Hold an inquisition. Make sure that people who don't believe (and have the power to resist change) are isolated and removed from any position where they might interfere with your changes.
B) Seize political power. Obtain enough political power to implement changes even in the face of resistance from the masses.
C) Seek solutions that don't require either political will or government mandate. Privately fund solutions such as commercial energy alternatives, carbon heat sinks, or alternative technologies.

Right now private industry is driving Green Power with some Govt help because it is in the interest of the civilizations they Govern.
Here in the USA we are going Faster than even was imagined by AOC and her GND because Renewables are now Cheaper.
app 85% of new power Gen.

You're a Know-Nothing FRAUD using nebulous and inappropriate terms.
This is probably only my second or third answer to your always empty posts about style.
Still No content, just an empty claim of "I'm the reasonable one."

`

 

[jc456]

And that belief is apparently ZERO with you, as you cannot elucidate it and why

You presented nothing

 

[Stryder50]

Are you not much bigger and more powerful than a butterfly?

Excerpt from your link;
Have you heard of the butterfly effect?

"The flapping of the wings of a butterfly can be felt on the other side of the world." This Chinese proverb is the origin.

This theory says that small actions are capable of generating large changes, positive or not. This idea taken from physics and the »Chaos theory», could be applied in your daily life.
....
Note: "THEORY"

 

[Stryder50]

Like co2 is .4% of atmospheric gases?

Actually, more like 0.04%

At current @ 400 +/- ppm = parts per million.
Expressed as math;

400/1,000,000
reduce;
4/10,000
reduce;
1/2,500 = 0.04%

 

[Stryder50]

As another expression of the "religion" nature of the true believers in human caused climate change/global warming (ACC/AGW), this sort of crap is frequent;

How online disinformation threatens climate change action​

How online disinformation threatens climate change action | Context

Falsehoods spread by oil companies, climate skeptics and others are a threat to progress against global warming, campaigners say

www.context.news

Crazy since ACC~AGW is founded on disinformation.

 

[EMH]

As another expression of the "religion" nature of the true believers in human caused climate change/global warming (ACC/AGW), this sort of crap is frequent;

How online disinformation threatens climate change action​

How online disinformation threatens climate change action | Context

Falsehoods spread by oil companies, climate skeptics and others are a threat to progress against global warming, campaigners say

www.context.news

Crazy since ACC~AGW is founded on disinformation.

The "action" that is threatened by truth is the complete DEFUNDING of the Co2 fraud followed by prosecution for massive fraud for 35 years and counting...

 

[Woodznutz]

That is the primary harm done by humans against the environment, and it is being misdiagnosed by the Co2 fraud.

Too many humans are removing too much fresh water from nature, and if it continues, it will be a cascading disaster. Desal is a Band Aid. Human overpopulation has to stop. Preferably by means other than Bill Gates' "overpopulation solution" Murderous Fraud Vax.

But that is where we are. Overpopulation has been discussed since the 1970s and earlier. Religious people do not pay any attention. That is because religious leaders only care about growing the flock...

Educated religious people are well aware of overpopulation, especially in regard to end time prophecies.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Most people are either physicists, meteorologists, geologists or scientists, but hardly any expert is an actual climatologist! Take a research look!

List of climate scientists - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I especially like model simulator

280 climate scientists in your link. Even then, the likes of Michael Schlesinger is dead.

So is that a complete list because Alarmists claim there's thousands of scientists that agree on man made climate change?

Also, where's Michael Shellenberger in that list, Obama listened to him and pumped billions into renewables? Oh, I know, because Shellenberger now champions nuclear, so that's him defunded and off the list.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually, more like 0.04%

At current @ 400 +/- ppm = parts per million.
Expressed as math;

400/1,000,000
reduce;
4/10,000
reduce;
1/2,500 = 0.04%

Jun. 15, 2023	424.55 ppm
Jun. 15, 2022	420.58 ppm
1 Year Change	3.97 ppm (0.94%)

 

[Stryder50]

That's what the " @ " = "about" was for.
Simplify the math. An @ 25ppm more isn't significant to the ratio expressed.
424.55 / 1,000,000 = 0.00042455
As a percentage of total atmosphere: 0.042455

Still leaves us with a ratio of 1/2,500 -
- No way does one part transfer small and significant measurable (negligible) limited portion of EM energy to the 2,499 other parts.

Unless your "science" funding is dependent upon making a convincing lie that it does.

 

[Stryder50]

Whether it's 400ppm or 425ppm, it is an average of several climate "zones" on Earth and of an atmosphere that extends 50+ miles with it's own layers.
A misleading average based upon blending a range of distortions.

img]https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.106c78840cbb6ff93e4437e0517333cd?rik=NfizQTYvMNuQyQ&riu=http%3a%2f%2f2.bp.blogspot.com%2f-JUjKcE_e8Ig%2fVUma2Jvx8-I%2fAAAAAAAAF9M%2fN5PrUDux4ok%2fs1600%2fvarious-world-climates.jpg&ehk=g2%2bXeHWXYZWHHly1zKfe28YSgHe8zdHpjWqAcrdSOfk%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0[/img]

All working from same available data, but showing the slight variations of expression and interpretation.

 

[Stryder50]

We can certainly use biology as a measure of climate ... obviously desert plants grow in the desert ... it's said an expert can look at the local oak tree and say his position within 50 miles ... anywhere on Earth's land masses ...

Average global climate is oceanic ... where air and liquid water meet ... see all the maps and charts, ocean climate doesn't change ... that's 71% of our weather ... 71% of our climate ... fully half the atmosphere by mass is oceanic ...

And a majority of crustal plate boundaries, are under the oceans. Some are expansion boundaries where rising warm/hot magma-lava push them outward.
Others are the subduction zones where friction can also generate heat.
Both types tend to be miles deep down so the is heat sources at the bottom of the oceans sending that heat upward.

crustal plate boundaries - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[Stryder50]

Next is classic because it shows that over a period of hundreds of millions of years, there is no indication that CO2 is setting the average global temperature. Often it looks like it may be the reverse, temperature drives the CO2 level. And that ith in that time span the majority has been higher, often significantly higher in both CO2 and temperature.

Another expression;

And an interesting one on the cyclic pattern of ice ages ~ glaciations and inter-glacials ;

 

[EMH]

So many wonderful color taxpayer funded fudge charts....

and precisely no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2...

 

[expat_panama]

Next is classic because it shows that over a period of hundreds of millions of years, there is no indication that CO2 is setting the average global temperature. Often it looks like it may be the reverse, temperature drives the CO2 level. And that ith in that time span the majority has been higher, often significantly higher in both CO2 and temperature.

Another expression;

And an interesting one on the cyclic pattern of ice ages ~ glaciations and inter-glacials ;

love the graphics, could you please share the source links for them?

 

[ReinyDays]

And a majority of crustal plate boundaries, are under the oceans. Some are expansion boundaries where rising warm/hot magma-lava push them outward.
Others are the subduction zones where friction can also generate heat.
Both types tend to be miles deep down so the is heat sources at the bottom of the oceans sending that heat upward.

crustal plate boundaries - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

I live along a subduction zone ... the heat rises up on the continent ... our volcanoes are close to 100 miles inland ...

They go poof occasionally ...

 

[Stryder50]

So many wonderful color taxpayer funded fudge charts....

and precisely no warming in the atmosphere despite rising Co2...

Not all are taxpayer funded. Some are from private sources. But at least that taxpayer funding provides something tangible that we can understand with out going through volumes of complicated and technical data.

Rather than "fudge charts" they are more an indication of the variance that occurs in data and it's interpretations.

When I have time, I might explain their meaning and how to read/understand them. I selected ones that I thought most who passed K-12 education could understand.

More precisely the one set shows warming in relation to CO2 levels and that over the span of time, millions of years, the is no evidence to support that temperatures are the result of CO2 levels. Often the opposite, CO2 is influenced by temperatures since such is an indicator the flora and fauna that could be supported on this planet.

 

[Stryder50]

love the graphics, could you please share the source links for them?

Well, if you right click on them, and then left click on the "copy image link" you can find one source for them.
You can also google search using;
"charts and graphs for ..."
> Earths climate zones
> CO2 and temperatures
> Ice Ages
> Earth's crustal/tectonic plates

You will get a page on screen showing dozens of results from which to pick and chose. Usually showing source information when you right click on one.

 

[Stryder50]

I live along a subduction zone ... the heat rises up on the continent ... our volcanoes are close to 100 miles inland ...

They go poof occasionally ...

Same here. Western Washington State. Lived a hundred+ miles closer the St. Helens back when it exploded.
My point was to underscore that there are other factors than CO2 that keep the planet warm and in comparison CO2 is negligible.

 

[Crick]

Same here. Western Washington State. Lived a hundred+ miles closer the St. Helens back when it exploded.
My point was to underscore that there are other factors than CO2 that keep the planet warm and in comparison CO2 is negligible.

I'm afraid it is volcanism's CO2 output that is negligible.

Which emits more carbon dioxide: volcanoes or human activities?

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year.

www.climate.gov

Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.​