Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 46
Latest Activity: on Thursday

Reference/Research Sites

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Gerald Payne on December 29, 2015 at 3:27am

I think the interpretation is that oceanic carbon doesn't affect climate but the worry is despite this atmospheric carbon has reached dangerous levels. I personally think the variables in the mix are such that the interpretations are at best educated speculations and that we're still in the throes of the last ice age.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 29, 2015 at 12:55am

Čenek, what did I just read?  

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 28, 2015 at 10:52pm

Cenek, what is the difference between organic carbon, and oceanic?  I tried to read your link, but I couldn't understand anything in the first paragraph, so I quit reading it.


Comment by Čenek Sekavec on December 28, 2015 at 9:02pm

*organic carbon not oceanic

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on December 28, 2015 at 8:56pm

This is a graph of CO2 for the last 500 million years.  Here is a link to the original paper. This is good, raw data with rigidly defined error bars. pCO2 is the partial pressure in medium: (t) being CO2 in the air and (O) being CO2 in the oceans. (if I read this right)

Temperature and CO2 wise we're at the bottom of a 300 million year low. As Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said: the sun, not greenhouse gasses, is the primary influence of climate change.

I lean more toward his hypothesis.

However as stated plainly at the end of the excellent paper I linked:

  • "Superficially, this observation would seem to imply that pCO2 does not exert dominant control on Earth's climate at time scales greater than about 10 My. A wealth of evidence, however, suggests that pCO2 exerts at least some control. [The graph] cannot by itself refute this assumption. Instead, it simply shows that the “null hypothesis” that pCO2 and climate are unrelated cannot be rejected on the basis of this evidence alone."

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 28, 2015 at 6:34pm

Reseach that is valid, reliable, duplicatable and any other variable you can think of that provides accurate information empowers us to make informed decisions.

Who do we believe? Who is trustworthy? Who is free of bias?  

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 28, 2015 at 6:03pm

Joan, I'm not arguing the point that we are putting CO2 into the air. What I'm trying to point out is that we are in a warming trend. It looks just like the four previous warming trends that followed the ice ages.  We are coming up out of an ice age, and we still haven't reached the temperature heights reached by the four previous warm periods. Since we are in, what seems to be a normal cycle, how can we blame man for the cyclic warming this time? 

I've always heard that water vapor is the biggest greehouse gas, and if I remember rigtht, it amounts to about 75-78 percent of the greenhouse effect.  I think I also read that CO2 accounts for about 15 percent, and man is responsible for a small amount of the CO2 that is there.

I don't know what you were trying to point out when you quoted Adm. Rickover.  I was trying to point out that even when we were pumping out all the CO2 during the war years, we saw the opposite effect of what we should have.  The Temperature went down for 35 years, not up as it should have with all the extra CO2 as your theory suggests..

I'm not going to worry about the CO2 until it gets up around 800 PPM.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 28, 2015 at 6:01pm

On 14 December 2012, drafts of the Working Group 1 (WG1) report were leaked and posted on the Internet.[9] The release of the summary for policymakers occurred on 27 September 2013.[4]Halldór Thorgeirsson, a UN official, warned that, because big companies are known to fund the undermining of climate science, scientists should be prepared for an increase in negative publicity at the time. "Vested interests are paying for the discrediting of scientists all the time. We need to be ready for that," he said.[10]

Marking the finalization of the Physical Science Basis UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moonaddressed the IPCC at Stockholm on 27 September 2013. He stated that "the heat is on. We must act". Jennifer Morgan, from the World Resources Institute, said "Hopefully the IPCC will inspire leadership, from the Mom to the business leader, to the mayor to the head of state."[11] US Secretary of State John Kerry responded to the report saying "This is yet another wakeup call: those who deny the science or choose excuses over action are playing with fire."[12] 

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

Donald, you wrote:

"Gore's hockey stick chart was adopted by the IPCC, and put into their report. As soon as a few real scientists started showing the discrepancies in that chart, it was taken out of the report. If those scientists are so good at their work, why did they incorportate that chart to start with? Why did so many real scientists ask that their names be taken off the report because it didn't show what they had submitted?"

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 28, 2015 at 5:54pm
Comment by Joan Denoo on December 28, 2015 at 5:37pm

"while world food production increased 9% in the six years from 1945-51, world population increased by 12%. Not only is world population increasing faster than world food production, but unfortunately, increases in food production tend to occur in the already well-fed, high-energy countries rather than in the undernourished, low-energy countries where food is most lacking."

Admiral Hyman Rickover, Energy resources and our future”, For Delivery at a Banquet of the Annual Scientific Assembly of the Minnesota State Medical Association, St. Paul, Minnesota, May 14, 1957

Donald, you wrote,

"All of the factories in the world were working 24/7 during the war. Almost all of the power was from coal and oil. All of the planes and ships were burning aviation gas, and the temperature started falling.


Members (46)



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service