A very simple and easy to understand explanation of why climate change is REAL.

S

Affected more by Atlantic circulation. There are recent studies on the 2400 year Bray cycles which correspond more to solar activity affecting ocean circulation and climate change. This is not a closed system and the simplistic notion that CO2 drives temperature still has no basis in historical records.

 

AA Welcome Back. Where you been?
Leaving any feriegn governments less or more stable?

I am sure you are aware that Climate changes, just like the Weather does.
And nothing is going on now that hasn't happened in recorded times of people.

​

So what are you going to do?
Stop Continental Drift?
Ignite a few volcanoes?
And why? Because you are inconvenienced?


Moi
No Tax Money for their Dikes.
Keep flood control straight.

r > g

Coming Soon, The Northwest Passage
Competing with the Panama Canal​

 

Let's not forget that iif the entire North pole ice cap melted it wouldn't raise sea levels a milliimeter since its entire weight currently floats on the ocean.

 

The Arctic is affected by ocean currents and wind and they change constantly. The Antarctic has an almost isolated climate from the rest of the world. Just read something about the Antarctic ice shelf May by affected by winds thousands of miles away.

 

I know but that has little or nothing to do with my point Antartica is a continent the north pole is not.

 

Everyone that has any logical knowledge of earth history knows there is climate change. It has been going on since the earth was formed. What is BS is all the political driven man made global warming. It is fed by lies, and faulty computer programs that has lies and assumptions built in.

 

I was reading an interesting article regarding the caldera at Campi Flegrei. Seems it's about to blow. Seems precipitous as the solar minimum is upon us, and the historic correlation of the two has led to the century long cold spells. Of course, the denier crowd are all minimizing both the risk of an eruption as well as any real impact. So much for belief in science.

 

The real question is predicting the next glaciation. One I read is we just missed an opportunity and the next one is in 400 years.

 

It has always seems somewhat ironic to me that folks "fear" a world that allows us to produce more food. It truly amazes me that folks will throw temper tantrums instead of embracing the idea that feeding the world is becoming more possible.

And then, I remember who those who are driving the cult are, and it crystalizes into those who are the most base of us all. The folks like Soros and Gore who are only interested in stacking the deck in their favor, enslaving the poor into dependency they themselves create and manage all for their own economic benefit. And I remember why the AGW cult is truly so dangerous. These are the Malthusian elite, The masters of more, for them.

 

Exactly!

And Gracias A Dios for what is happening on central Antarctica or the town of Truro, Nova Scotia would have been in serious trouble by now!


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ives-to-take-climate-change-seriously.348662/

HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

.....

 

I hereby challenge you Sir.........to give an even better and more easily understood answer to the question I posed a few months ago than the one by............
Taxonomy26.....

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-high-tides-question.463012/#post-1066351813

 

Sir... it is awesome to have you back with us!

I quoted this into post # 59


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...o-take-climate-change-seriously.348662/page-4


HAB Theory and getting Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

 

I quoted your other post over to this discussion:


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...rael-and-jordan.506627/page-3#post-1067870548
Jamie Baillie, Nova Scotia, Israel and Jordan.

 

Wow!!!

Politicalcenter gave me a heads up on some astonishingly encouraging information.


https://permaculturenews.org/2012/1...ack-where-it-belongs-in-the-earth-tedx-video/

TONY LOVELL ON SOIL CARBON: PUTTING CARBON BACK WHERE IT BELONGS – IN THE EARTH (TEDX VIDEO)

 

But isn't that factor only relevant for a number of days or at most weeks.....
until gravity manages to level out ocean waters all over the earth????

 

During an El Nina the sea level in Asia is higher than the sea level on the west coast of North America due to the winds.

 

However, climate change is real because climate change has always been real, always been happening. How is that possible, since for the vast portion of time, we didn't exist?
The glaciers that are melting now came from the last ice age, which in north America 14,000 years ago covered most of Canada and a large portion of United States, and are responsible for carving things like the great lakes. Most of those melted long before any significant number of humans came along and exhaled carbon dioxide, let alone invented internal combustion- and they melted because temperatures rose, AKA "Global warming" took place. Geology tells us ice ages are cyclical, there have been many before and it will happen again. If humanity hasn't exterminated itself by then, we will have people freaking out over global cooling. It seems that no matter what is happening, we always have people freaking out.

We tend to think of time in micro scale- tiny increments, that to us, are vast. However mother nature thinks on a truly huge timeline in which the total existence of human beings is the equivalent of a flyspeck on the face of the clock, and our concerns cover but a tiny portion of the flyspeck. Kind of like finding a grain of black sand on a huge white beach and declaring an emergency. Most things nature changes take place so slowly we never noticed until our technology advanced to the point we could begin diagnosing ancient history- but not always so slowly.

Paying attention to what is happening is one thing, and we should do that. Freaking out and thinking we can or should reverse the course of nature..... that change must not happen? That's something that should have us questioning our relativity to the entire scheme of nature. The rest of nature adapts to change, but we think we are controlling change in nature, and can make it adapt to us.

 

Electric airliners powered by wimdmills?

What an ineresting but impractical thought

 

Oh look...A Denier Circle Jerk

Make sure you take a shower guys.

Those things get messy I hear

 

Carbon dioxide - the gas that is exhaled by human beings and adsorbed by plants to continue both of our life cycles, a dangerous "greenhouse gas". If we listened to the global warmist types we'd be back in the dark ages with no way to heat our homes, cook food, sterilize equipment and utensils...or is that the intent?

 

We tend to think of time in a scale where humans have an opportunity to respond to the change without cataclysmic impact on the population.

That wasn't so hard 14,000 years ago. The few humans could move around earth to better climate or they could die. BFD.

Today, we do NOT let people move around the earth as needed. And, most of us don't see death as a solution.

Let's not allow ourselves to be totally confused about what the concern is. And, let's remember it has nothing to do with the population of humans (or other animals) 14,000 years ago.

 

Your "logic" is that since we need some amount of something then huge concentrations of it must be fine.

There is nothing in all biology that works like that. You can kill yourself by drinking water. And, yes, we can overheat the earth by mining carbon and putting it into the atmosphere - like we are doing right now.

 

We have a few options.
One is to do what we can to minimize our contribution to the problem.
Another is to modify the way we utilize space to avoid prospective problems, such as building close to sea levels when it appears sea levels will rise.
A third, sort of a combination of the above and mindset, is to adapt to the idea that things do change.
What doesn't make sense is deciding that this is like the temperature in your house, and once you get the thermostat fixed it will go away-
or losing focus on other important aspects of life and freaking out over what you can't change.
Common sense is usually a good thing to keep available. The sky is not falling.

 

"Like many doom-mongers before him, Al Gore's predictions of impending disaster have fallen somewhat short of the mark -- a point to keep in mind as his Inconvenient Sequel hits theatres this summer.

It's a good thing he was wrong, too, because I was worried we might not be around in 2017, given the alarms he was sounding in 2006's An Inconvenient Truth!

For one thing, I thought sea levels would have risen 20 feet by now thanks to the melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Al Gore claimed that this would happen in the "near future," but thankfully, we've been spared so far. In fact, sea levels seem to be rising at maybe three millimetres per year. Twenty feet is over six thousand millimetres, so at this rate, we wouldn't even be halfway by the year 3017.

That's what a High Court judge in the United Kingdom said ten years ago when he ruled that Gore's film could only be shown in British schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination: "The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus" and would only happen "after, and over, millennia."

The judge had other problems with the film's claims. For instance, the film speaks of global warming "shutting down the Ocean Conveyor," by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to Western Europe, among other things. But the judge said it was "very unlikely" that the Ocean Conveyor would shut down, although it might slow down, based on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Again, though, so far so good, as NASA found in 2010 that there had been no significant slowing over the previous 15 years, and in fact that the Ocean Conveyor "may have even sped up slightly in the recent past."

The polar bears are doing fine as well, despite the film's claims that they were drowning because they were unable to find ice. In fact, their numbers have increased over the past decade, from 20,000-25,000 to 23,000-32,000 bears in 2016.

Finally, though not in the film, Al Gore often predicted that the Arctic Ocean would be ice-free in the summer by now. To be specific, according to the fact checkers at Snopes.com, "In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014." They go on to conclude that while "Arctic sea ice is, without question, on a declining trend," Al Gore "definitely erred in his use of preliminary projections and misrepresentations of research."

None of this is to say that climate change is not an issue worth addressing, that it won't require adaptation and innovation in the coming decades. It is and it will. But is it an impending catastrophe? Is it a concern that should outweigh, for instance, efforts to help the poorest parts of the world rise out of crushing poverty through the use of cheap and efficient fossil fuels?

In trying to answer these kinds of questions, we need reliable information of likely costs and benefits. "Misrepresentations of research," which Al Gore seems all too fond of, are the opposite of helpful."

'Al Gore's Predictions Of Doom Scramble His Message,' Huff Post, Jasmine Guenette, 5-17-2017

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/jasmin-guenette/al-gores-inconvenient-sequel_b_16669842.html

200 hundred years from now, in the rearview mirror, Gore will look like the crazy fire and brimstone preacher William Miller, who convinced many that the world would end in 1844.

 

I understand what you are saying, but you should explain it better for some others.
As for the effects, it's a fairly simple science project.