Information

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: 50
Latest Activity: on Sunday

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Jet Stream Mayhem begins Tues

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on Sunday. 3 Replies

Siberian air…Continue

Tags: jet stream waves

Framing Climate Destabilization

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Joan Denoo Nov 8. 19 Replies

The words we use and the images they evoke shape public comprehension of Catastrophic Climate Destabilization's immanence. Here are a few terms from the past few days. It's a tiny…Continue

Tags: communicating climate science, Climate Destabilization, framing

Comment Wall

Comment

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

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.

Comment by Joan Denoo on December 28, 2015 at 4:47pm

"Over the last 800,000 years atmospheric CO2 levels as indicated by the ice-core data have fluctuated between 170 and 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv), corresponding with conditions of glacial and interglacial periods. The Vostok core indicates very similar trends. Prior to about 450,000 years before present time (BP) atmospheric CO2 levels were always at or below 260 ppmv and reached lowest values, approaching 170 ppmv, between 660,000 and 670,000 years ago. The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv, in the Vostok core, around 330,000 years ago. Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased markedly in industrial times; measurements in year 2010 at Cape Grim Tasmania and the South Pole both indicated values of 386 ppmv, and are currently increasing at about 2 ppmv/year.

You wrote

"Why is it our fault the earth is warming, when it was warmer than this before we started burning all these fossil fuels?"

Comment by Alan Perlman on December 26, 2015 at 7:55pm

Let's hear all sides!  Seldom has science been so intertwined with politics!  I remember a 1970s Newsweek (RIP) cover about a coming Ice Age.  Can't we have the additional CO2 without catastrophic consequences?

Comment by Donald L. Engel on December 26, 2015 at 6:26pm
I've shown a chart of the Vostok Ice Core somewhere on A/N that shows we are still not as warm as the previous four warming periods. I've shown a map of Glacier Bay showing the retreating glacier in that bay, and we don't know how big it was before we discovered it. We still aren't as warm as it was during the Medieval Warming Period. The Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland before the Little Ice Age, and they still can't do that now. Why is it our fault the earth is warming, when it was warmer than this before we started burning all these fossil fuels. The plants love it, and CO2 does not harm humans until it gets in the 8700PPM range. And....warming precedes a rise in CO2. It doesn't work the other way around. The oceans were warming long before the Industrial Revolution. This warming forced the oceans to release CO2. That, along with us burning fossil fuels has led to a raise in CO2 levels. But you can't say that this rise is causing the rise in temperatures, because The temperature was rising before all the halabaloo.
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. The average temp fell for 35 years, and the organiations that are now crying catastrophe from heat, were crying The Ice Age Is Coming!!!"
The CO2 measuring station started in 1952. It shows the CO2 rising steadily, and a temperature chart shows the temp dropping just as steadily until about 1976.
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 Alan Perlman on December 26, 2015 at 3:16pm

I know, we're talking about a population in which large majorities believe in God, heaven, hell, and angels.  What do facts matter if men rode dinosaurs?  Evolution is just a theory, right?  So the climate scientists could just as well be wrong.

Comment by Bertold Brautigan on December 26, 2015 at 2:43pm

>I just don't get why people deny it.

Because the same highly paid whores who discredited research on the harm done by tobacco and stifled research on gun violence have just cut to the chase and discredited science itself in the minds of the gullible.

 

Members (50)

 
 
 

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service