Is man made climate change real?

[jhurkot]

I find that very hard to believe, volcanos have the ability to put us into another ice age.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

24,000,000,000 (humans) / 200,000,000 (volcanoes) = 120 times more by humans.

 

[Mike270412]

Imagine having a job that when you did it, people said that your effort was useless because you "got paid for it".

If the words "Climate change " are in the name of your employer, they are expecting certain results.

 

[Caper11]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

24,000,000,000 (humans) / 200,000,000 (volcanoes) = 120 times more by humans.

Co2 is a natural occurring gas that every living thing expels and absorbs. It even comes out of the ground so strong in some places, people are forbidden to go in these zones. Comparing co2 produced by humans to a volcano, and saying human cause CO2 is worse, is Blasphemy IMO. Its been proven already that major volcanic eruptions have cooled the earth, and all it would take was another major one, that could put us into a volcanic winter.

If certain people believe that co2 is a issue than we as an entire society should hault technology, and go back to the way things were 100 years ago.

 

[Mike270412]

How much of climate change is caused by humans?

 

[DaveB]

How much of climate change is caused by humans?

None. The end.

 

[win]

At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970 appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system. A climatic stabilization or cooling until 2030–2040 is forecast by the phenomenological model.

 

[jhurkot]

If the words "Climate change " are in the name of your employer, they are expecting certain results.

It doesn't matter what the name of the employer is. Science is built on skepticism. You do a study, and all your peers try to prove you wrong. If they cannot disprove you and arrive at a similar conclusion then that is how they achieve consensus. But according to the tinfoil hat crowd there is a big green energy boogyman who is stuffing climate scientists pockets full of cash and trying to (insert wild conspiracy theory here). I think our children just want to live in a world where they can go outdoors and breathe clean air (what a bunch of entitled little brats!).

And it's not like we have to just stop doing everything we are doing now and become Amish. We have the technology to deal with this.

 

[deaner]

It doesn't matter what the name of the employer is. Science is built on skepticism. You do a study, and all your peers try to prove you wrong. If they cannot disprove you and arrive at a similar conclusion then that is how they achieve consensus. But according to the tinfoil hat crowd there is a big green energy boogyman who is stuffing climate scientists pockets full of cash and trying to (insert wild conspiracy theory here). I think our children just want to live in a world where they can go outdoors and breathe clean air (what a bunch of entitled little brats!).

And it's not like we have to just stop doing everything we are doing now and become Amish. We have the technology to deal with this.

What technology is that? Solar? Wind? Electric cars? I’m sorry.....I’m on the same page as you in the sense that I want to leave the world a safe and clean place for my kids, but I just don’t believe that the current approach is going to have any effect at all. I do think we need to focus on coming up with better alternatives, but the current initiatives are not doing that. And I think that we are deluding ourselves into thinking we have more control than we do. We are sitting on a molten ball of rock that is spinning around flying through space fueled by an enormous burning ball of gas millions of miles away, protected by an invisible magnetic field.......and about a million other miracles that allow us to live. I just can’t get on board with the idea that co2 is our biggest problem.

Ive been working on hydrogen fusion technology in my basement. Could be the answer to all of our problems. Only problem is I don’t have any scientific equipment or training.

 

[jhurkot]

What technology is that? Solar? Wind? Electric cars? I’m sorry.....I’m on the same page as you in the sense that I want to leave the world a safe and clean place for my kids, but I just don’t believe that the current approach is going to have any effect at all. I do think we need to focus on coming up with better alternatives, but the current initiatives are not doing that. And I think that we are deluding ourselves into thinking we have more control than we do. We are sitting on a molten ball of rock that is spinning around flying through space fueled by an enormous burning ball of gas millions of miles away, protected by an invisible magnetic field.......and about a million other miracles that allow us to live. I just can’t get on board with the idea that co2 is our biggest problem.

Ive been working on hydrogen fusion technology in my basement. Could be the answer to all of our problems. Only problem is I don’t have any scientific equipment or training.

Why do you think solar, wind, and hydro are not viable?

 

[LennyR]

It doesn't matter what the name of the employer is. Science is built on skepticism. You do a study, and all your peers try to prove you wrong. If they cannot disprove you and arrive at a similar conclusion then that is how they achieve consensus. But according to the tinfoil hat crowd there is a big green energy boogyman who is stuffing climate scientists pockets full of cash and trying to (insert wild conspiracy theory here). I think our children just want to live in a world where they can go outdoors and breathe clean air (what a bunch of entitled little brats!).

And it's not like we have to just stop doing everything we are doing now and become Amish. We have the technology to deal with this.

The "tin foil hat" crowd is certainly no less credible than the "lets switch to wind and solar to save the planet for our kids" crowd. And kids if given the facts are smart enough to realize that banning fossil fuel use is not realistic. Unless they're brainwashed by parents and media to believe the "climate crisis" paranoia.
You bet , explore new methods and processes, and when and if proven, forge ahead. But facts like the 14000 abounded wind turbines in the USA alone and so many other places , really have to be examined. How much of that money was subsidized, and who pays for the dismantling and clean up, what did it do to the local wildlife and bird and insect population. So many implications.

 

[lilduke]

carbon capture is a pretty good setup, we can keep burning oil and keep the co2 ppm where ever we want. no one seems to kow where it needs to be at though (as far as ppm goes)

 

[team dirt]

My biggest issue with CO2 is that we are not creating any more than already existed on earth. It is constantly being recycled and ranges in the atmosphere will fluctuate constantly. Maybe we are currently low on CO2 in the atmosphere from where we are supposed to be. Until someone can give me a true Measurment of where the worlds optimum reading is then I don’t fall for it that it’s at a bad level currently. I’m all for not polluting the air and taking better care of garbage in these third world countries that just dump it in oceans. I’m stocking up on straws though. That’s my retirement plan. Black market straw sales will sky rocket!!

 

[jhurkot]

The "tin foil hat" crowd is certainly no less credible than the "lets switch to wind and solar to save the planet for our kids" crowd. And kids if given the facts are smart enough to realize that banning fossil fuel use is not realistic. Unless they're brainwashed by parents and media to believe the "climate crisis" paranoia.
You bet , explore new methods and processes, and when and if proven, forge ahead. But facts like the 14000 abounded wind turbines in the USA alone and so many other places , really have to be examined. How much of that money was subsidized, and who pays for the dismantling and clean up, what did it do to the local wildlife and bird and insect population. So many implications.

We are nowhere near banning fossil fuels. There are no alternatives when it comes to heavy equipment right now.

 

[jhurkot]

My biggest issue with CO2 is that we are not creating any more than already existed on earth. It is constantly being recycled and ranges in the atmosphere will fluctuate constantly. Maybe we are currently low on CO2 in the atmosphere from where we are supposed to be. Until someone can give me a true Measurment of where the worlds optimum reading is then I don’t fall for it that it’s at a bad level currently. I’m all for not polluting the air and taking better care of garbage in these third world countries that just dump it in oceans. I’m stocking up on straws though. That’s my retirement plan. Black market straw sales will sky rocket!!

No we are not creating it, but we are adding it at a higher rate than was ever intended. So at what number of ppm do you start to get concerned?

 

[Cdnfireman]

intended by whom??? when climate barbie and Trudeau flap about carbon "pollution", its disingenuous. CO2 is not pollution, its a constituent gas in our atmosphere necessary for human and all other animal life that breathe our air.
Perhaps all the greenies should quantify factually what is too high in terms of temperature and CO2, not just what they "feel" is a proper level. numbers based on facts, not feelings. Notice that all the climate change hysterics always have qualifiers in their statements...... "its projected, its estimated, its possible, its likely, its assumed," etc etc.
none of them can throw down and say precisely what the absolute level of CO2 or temperature is critical.
And a higher level of CO2 doesn't mean the air isn't clean to breathe.....its not toxic if the level rises from 400 parts per million to 500. Your kids will be just fine and will not fall over dead on the front lawn at 500 parts per million.....(thats a fact, not projected, estimated or assumed)

 

[Teth-Air]

Yes but how far back should we look to establish an average or what is considered normal? Alberta was an inland tropical ocean at one time. Maybe that should be considered normal and what we have today is abnormal? Maybe we should be happy that the carbon dioxide level is turning around from a potential "too low scenario" . We would have all been doomed if it kept falling as it had been.

 

[Cdnfireman]

interesting how you lump hydro in with solar and wind. hydro is proven over a century or more, while solar and wind are both spotty, unreliable, expensive and cannot exist now or in the foreseeable future without massive taxpayer funded subsidies.

 

[LennyR]

Why do you think solar, wind, and hydro are not viable?

He never said hydro . And solar and wind have already proven themselves not really viable for the masses.

 

[jhurkot]

intended by whom??? when climate barbie and Trudeau flap about carbon "pollution", its disingenuous. CO2 is not pollution, its a constituent gas in our atmosphere necessary for human and all other animal life that breathe our air.
Perhaps all the greenies should quantify factually what is too high in terms of temperature and CO2, not just what they "feel" is a proper level. numbers based on facts, not feelings. Notice that all the climate change hysterics always have qualifiers in their statements...... "its projected, its estimated, its possible, its likely, its assumed," etc etc.
none of them can throw down and say precisely what the absolute level of CO2 or temperature is critical.
And a higher level of CO2 doesn't mean the air isn't clean to breathe.....its not toxic if the level rises from 400 parts per million to 500. Your kids will be just fine and will not fall over dead on the front lawn at 500 parts per million.....(thats a fact, not projected, estimated or assumed)

Ok, but does higher ppm rates of co2 trap heat inside the atmosphere?

 

[Teth-Air]

Ok, but does higher ppm rates of co2 trap heat inside the atmosphere?

I know you are asking Cdnfireman but from what I understand is that the answer should be "yes" but the reason scientists and government have adopted "Climate Change" over the former "Global Warming" is that the actual measurement they have been taking has shown a cooling of the Earth when they expected to find it warming.