More Climate BS...

[MemphisVol77]

the planet warmed due to well-understood natural cycles,

It's barely understood

It’s not just correlation. We’ve understood the causation since the 1800s!

BS. We didn't even start keeping empirical temperature records until the late 1880s. By empirical, I mean recorded by scientific methods and instruments that can be verified for accuracy. Older farmers almanacs and other written records like sailors logs are useful, but not conclusive.

Super volcanoes having caused global cooling periods in the past was theorized, but not proven until less than 40 years ago, the 1990s. I say this to emphasize how little of climate change is still actually understood.

If you look at a longer time period than the one @LouderVol provided, temperatures fluxuate much more every 100K years. The temperature spikes up about 10 degrees celsius for a few thousand years then decreases about 10 degrees celsius. The phenomenom is thought to be caused by the distance from the earth to the sun decreasing approximately ecery 100K years before increasing again. Looking at that rate of temp increase and the time passed since last temp increase, we could curently be at the tail end of another increase. That would probably mean the amount of temperature increase caused by humans is magnitudes less than most believe.

Climate variability and change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Climate science should be pursued, but pursued without an agenda. What we presently have is just correlative. I personally think rather than presuming climate change is something we caused or can stop, our focus should be on accepting and adapting to climate change.

 

[LouderVol]

What makes you think this article is some sort of “gotcha”? There’s nothing inconsistent with our understanding of climate change and earth history.

After the last glacial maximum, the planet warmed due to well-understood natural cycles, with temperatures peaking some 10k years ago. Since then we’ve been on a natural slow cooling trajectory. Very slow. It’s no coincidence the growth of human civilization coincided with a period of climate stability.

Now the climate is suddenly rapidly going the other direction. The problem isn’t change per se; it’s the rate of change. The warming occurring over the past decades normally takes thousands of years. The rate of change is comparable to mass extinction events. You think that’s just a coincidence?

And consider the carbon cycle. What we’re burning over decades takes many millions of years to return to the ground.

It’s not just correlation. We’ve understood the causation since the 1800s!

there have been other mass extinctions. again the argument isn't that the climate is warming. the issue is someone needs to prove we are doing it. at BEST science currently has correlation, not causation. thats been my argument the whole time.

I have a couple friends who work in this very field, know a bunch more, studied it in college, and worked with folks at ORNL. do you know the current best method to test for temperature changes? kinda a trick question because it depends on what you have. Ice core or sediment cores are the best. do you know how accurately those tell scientists what year it is? Ice cores they can check the layers, but the farther back you go the more compressed those layers get, and they stop being accurate predictors. The older Ice Core sample only goes back 800k years. even at only 800k its impossible for them to KNOW where one year stops or stops. Sediment cores don't have the compression issue, but that is because the layers aren't as ordered, so there is no accurate way to say this was year .......81bc and this was year ......82bc. carbon dating only works to a point. when you read the reports/papers the temperature data is all noted as being extrapolated from PROXY data. do we use proxy data now? no. why? because its not a good predictor, and that same proxy data today tells us a different story about our current environment than our preferred methods do.

so when you say the warming that has happened over a decade would normally take thousands of years is a guess. and its a guess that only assumes one factor (temperature change) was at play. doesn't look at any chemical changes, composition changes, changes in precipitation, atmospheric changes, other natural disruptions whether living or not. it assumes ALL of those factors are temperature related. its lazy and its done to manipulate.

we have been in a cooling period for FAR too long. yes that stability is good, but it isn't natural. eventually, even if there were no humans, nature was going to fix itself. there is no way for science to control for that natural process, which is why they assume 100% of the changes we see are man made. there is NO control for any natural change. the fact that we are returning to a geologic "normal" is never mentioned; that information is left out so they can manipulate the masses.

you know that carbon cycle is a CONTINUOUS process right? its not like all the carbon in our FF was sitting around doing nothing for 999,999 years and then it hit a million and became some FF. each layer of plankton or whatever built up and "aged" into FF in one long process. however the lifeform that eventually became the FF were not the source of carbon. they likely weren't pulling the carbon out of the air before returning it back, even in a lifeform that carbon was part of a process. so yes that carbon was likely in the air at some point. and guess what? that excess carbon is leading to "excess" plant growth. so its not like we are interrupting the process. As Carbon Dioxide Grows More Abundant, Trees Are Growing Bigger, Study Finds
why? because its a continuous process. one that nature has dealt with long before our ancestor split from the ancestor of the apes.

are we seeing change? yes.
could it lead to mass extinction? yes. I believe we are due. for a mass extinction event anyway.
are humans contributing? sure, on some level likely to scale with our relative mass to the earth itself or at worst the atmosphere.
can humans change climate change or stop or metaphorically freeze it? doubtful, and the law of unintended consequences is a cruel mistress. mother nature doesn't like being effed with.

 

[LouderVol]

double post *deleted*

no one is going to read it once, yet alone twice.

 

[Ritzwatch]

double post *deleted*

no one is going to read it once, yet alone twice.

I read this one instead.

It was shorter.

 

[LouderVol]

I read this one instead.

It was shorter.

you aren't wrong.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Kamala Harris Buys $8.2 Million Seaside Mansion After Warning 'Sea Levels Are Rising' Due to 'Climate Crisis'​

Harris's new home features many of the same amenities—such as a gas stove and fireplace—that the Biden-Harris administration targeted with regulations​

Former vice president Kamala Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff purchased an $8 million mansion in an exclusive oceanside Malibu neighborhood last month. The move came after Harris spent years warning that such communities could be threatened by the "climate crisis."

A real estate listing for the mansion, reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, says the luxury pad is "perched in a prime coastal location" with "breathtaking ocean views." The property sits right near a coastline that—according to climate scenarios endorsed by Harris—is at risk of facing extreme flooding. A climate model issued by the Biden-Harris administration determined that Point Dume State Beach, the beach a short walk from Harris's new property, would be severely damaged by sea level rise even under the model's most modest projections. The Trump administration discontinued that model in June 2025.

Kamala Harris Buys $8.2 Million Seaside Mansion After Warning 'Sea Levels Are Rising' Due to 'Climate Crisis'

Former vice president Kamala Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff purchased an $8 million mansion in an exclusive oceanside Malibu neighborhood last month. The move came after Harris spent years warning that such communities could be threatened by the "climate crisis."

freebeacon.com

 

[marcusluvsvols]

North Carolina finds PFAS chemicals in wastewater, soil across state North Carolina finds PFAS chemicals in wastewater, soil across state

^^^ this is the kind of research and actions we could and should actually be working on in order to protect humanity. These "forever chemicals" that accumulate in humans and animals poison us from the inside until the day we die. We need to find out which companies and processes are dumping these chemicals into our environment and actually do something to stop it. Instead, we devote millions of dollars in taxpayers funds to try and figure out which breed of dogs like Cocaine the most. The Democrats could Eff up a free lunch. I would say they are as useless as tits on a bull...but that's an affront to bull tits everywhere.

Once again...it's not that there aren't problems with pollution and resources (like freshwater and oceans) that need to be protected. The problem is the trillion dollar "climate change" hoax diverts all the money that could actually be spent on real problems to nonsensical BS worldwide.

 

[LouderVol]

so when you say the warming that has happened over a decade would normally take thousands of years is a guess. and its a guess that only assumes one factor (temperature change) was at play. doesn't look at any chemical changes, composition changes, changes in precipitation, atmospheric changes, other natural disruptions whether living or not. it assumes ALL of those factors are temperature related. its lazy and its done to manipulate.

another article, and related study pointing out this issue with the data we are using to make our assumptions.

rising sea levels/losing land is one of the big fears due to CC. the studies that point to the loss of land assume its all due to CC. here is an article/study that points to other contributors, even pointing out it has a bigger impact than CC.

18 of Earth's biggest river deltas — including the Nile and Amazon — are sinking faster than global sea levels are rising

Worldwide, millions of people live in river deltas that are sinking faster than sea levels are rising, research suggests. This exacerbates the risk of catastrophic coastal flooding and land loss.

www.livescience.com

"This means subsidence is becoming the main driver of land loss, coastal flooding and saltwater intrusion at river deltas — surpassing the impacts of sea-level rise from climate change. Researchers also found that groundwater extraction is the biggest cause of subsidence at deltas globally, with urban expansion and declines in rivers' sediment loads contributing to the overall sinking trend."

again there are SOOOO many data points that are being manipulated to make CC worse than it is, or at least to blame too much on CC. Also if we are taking too much water out of the ground, that the ground is sinking, that extra water has to go somewhere...but surely all the CC activists have factored that into their studies...

one thing I have wondered about is alternate ways to replenish/create aquifers. I have no clue if it would work, or would even have the desired effect, or what other issues would/could be created; but I wonder if we could use salt water to replace the water underground. the hypothesis being that we could find some way to introduce sea water back into the ground inland, deep enough to avoid soil contamination, and slow enough to avoid creating a "surge". but then let that water sit for however long before its fit for human consumption. the idea being using the ground/rock to filter out most of the salts. I could see plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work, but something I have been curious about and was at least tangentially related.

 

[TheDirector]

Fun read on how Al Gore's signature documentary held up over time. Although climate cooling then warming then change has been a tool of the left for decades, this documentary led to many current ill-informed liberals and democrats embracing the Global Warming now Climate Change religion/cult. Al Gore is now worth $300 million dollars and most of his wealth has been derived from pushing this nonsense and it's gullible followers eating it up.

Twenty Years Later, 'An Inconvenient Truth' Has Been Thoroughly Debunked

 

[marcusluvsvols]

another article, and related study pointing out this issue with the data we are using to make our assumptions.

rising sea levels/losing land is one of the big fears due to CC. the studies that point to the loss of land assume its all due to CC. here is an article/study that points to other contributors, even pointing out it has a bigger impact than CC.

18 of Earth's biggest river deltas — including the Nile and Amazon — are sinking faster than global sea levels are rising

Worldwide, millions of people live in river deltas that are sinking faster than sea levels are rising, research suggests. This exacerbates the risk of catastrophic coastal flooding and land loss.

www.livescience.com

"This means subsidence is becoming the main driver of land loss, coastal flooding and saltwater intrusion at river deltas — surpassing the impacts of sea-level rise from climate change. Researchers also found that groundwater extraction is the biggest cause of subsidence at deltas globally, with urban expansion and declines in rivers' sediment loads contributing to the overall sinking trend."

again there are SOOOO many data points that are being manipulated to make CC worse than it is, or at least to blame too much on CC. Also if we are taking too much water out of the ground, that the ground is sinking, that extra water has to go somewhere...but surely all the CC activists have factored that into their studies...

one thing I have wondered about is alternate ways to replenish/create aquifers. I have no clue if it would work, or would even have the desired effect, or what other issues would/could be created; but I wonder if we could use salt water to replace the water underground. the hypothesis being that we could find some way to introduce sea water back into the ground inland, deep enough to avoid soil contamination, and slow enough to avoid creating a "surge". but then let that water sit for however long before its fit for human consumption. the idea being using the ground/rock to filter out most of the salts. I could see plenty of reasons why it wouldn't work, but something I have been curious about and was at least tangentially related.

Good post. I read about some new desalination process that's supposed to be promising too. Your idea makes sense on a logical level. We have to be really careful with our freshwater reserves or we will all die eventually IMO. California needs to desalinate from the ocean instead of stealing the Colorado river for example

 

[LouderVol]

Good post. I read about some new desalination process that's supposed to be promising too. Your idea makes sense on a logical level. We have to be really careful with our freshwater reserves or we will all die eventually IMO. California needs to desalinate from the ocean instead of stealing the Colorado river for example

talking about underground water, it was recently discovered there are seas of water underground, that we haven't tapped into, more apparently than is on the surface.

New Evidence for Oceans of Water Deep in the Earth

Based in part on studies at Brookhaven Lab's National Synchrotron Light Source, researchers from Northwestern University and the University of New Mexico report evidence for the ingredients of water bound up in rock deep in Earth's mantle.

www.bnl.gov

this "missing water" has been known about for a while, but never proven. but we suddenly find all this water, and none of the science are CC/raising water even acknowledges this. doesn't stop and go "hmmm, we need to consider this new information to make sure it doesn't impact our previous work." nope, just side step it.

Now, I am not saying it would impact the CC data, but it just seems like bad science to find literally more water underground than on the surface, and just ignore it when it comes to rising sea levels.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Maybe we buy Siberia from the Russians and get Lake Baikal's fresh water reserve.

Added bonus: we'd have somewhere to deport illegal aliens to.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[rekinhavoc]

The Perpetual Climate Panic Machine 'Collapses', by Tim Graham

Global warming has gone cold as an issue. Despite decades of panicked predictions of doom, it's never been a high priority for voters, and Trump's bold expressions of

www.creators.com

 

[Sea Ray]

The Perpetual Climate Panic Machine 'Collapses', by Tim Graham

Global warming has gone cold as an issue. Despite decades of panicked predictions of doom, it's never been a high priority for voters, and Trump's bold expressions of

www.creators.com

Yep, liberals have lost this issue

 

[OrangeTsar]

About to get a big ole heaping dish of “global warming” in Tennessee this weekend

 

[OrangeTsar]

.

 

[Volnanza]

It's barely understood

BS. We didn't even start keeping empirical temperature records until the late 1880s. By empirical, I mean recorded by scientific methods and instruments that can be verified for accuracy. Older farmers almanacs and other written records like sailors logs are useful, but not conclusive.

Super volcanoes having caused global cooling periods in the past was theorized, but not proven until less than 40 years ago, the 1990s. I say this to emphasize how little of climate change is still actually understood.

If you look at a longer time period than the one @LouderVol provided, temperatures fluxuate much more every 100K years. The temperature spikes up about 10 degrees celsius for a few thousand years then decreases about 10 degrees celsius. The phenomenom is thought to be caused by the distance from the earth to the sun decreasing approximately ecery 100K years before increasing again. Looking at that rate of temp increase and the time passed since last temp increase, we could curently be at the tail end of another increase. That would probably mean the amount of temperature increase caused by humans is magnitudes less than most believe.

Climate variability and change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Climate science should be pursued, but pursued without an agenda. What we presently have is just correlative. I personally think rather than presuming climate change is something we caused or can stop, our focus should be on accepting and adapting to climate change.

Barely? Might be an understatement. The global climate is effected by many many things. Astronomical cycles, solar cycles, geological cycles all affect the weather. We think we have a lot of data measuring back a couple hundred years. If you plotted that data on a graph that covered 100,000 years, we wouldn't have enough data to make the first dot and 100,000 years is a wink of the eye when talking geologic time. Its the sheer arrogance of science to assume they know everything when so little has been discovered.

 

[EasternVol]

Barely? Might be an understatement. The global climate is effected by many many things. Astronomical cycles, solar cycles, geological cycles all affect the weather. We think we have a lot of data measuring back a couple hundred years. If you plotted that data on a graph that covered 100,000 years, we wouldn't have enough data to make the first dot and 100,000 years is a wink of the eye when talking geologic time. Its the sheer arrogance of science to assume they know everything when so little has been discovered.

We have data going back much longer than that. Are you familiar with core samples?

 

[LouderVol]

We have data going back much longer than that. Are you familiar with core samples?

the core samples aren't precise enough to tell us the temperatures only rose 0.01 degree Celcius on average over a decade, so the 0.02 degree Celcius difference can only be explained by humans.

even the cores don't tell us the actual temperatures, what it tells us is a whole bunch of different conditions existed in a manner that produced the results that we see in the core. pretty much none of it is solely, or even a majority, explained by temperatures.

its very unlikely the only condition that changed was the temperature in those core samples.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Letting scientists with the extremely insignificant amount of data we have try to forecast Earth's future climate is like letting your neighbors kid who watched a 30sec commercial for a hospital perform open heart surgery on you. Those looking rationally at either attempt know it's ridiculous.

The propaganda from the grift is endless though...and people are gullible and on average not very knowledgeable.

 

[StarRaider]

Maybe we buy Siberia from the Russians and get Lake Baikal's fresh water reserve.

Added bonus: we'd have somewhere to deport illegal aliens to.

build a landbridge over the Bering and let the leftists finish their journey to utopia

 

[GroverCleveland]

build a landbridge over the Bering and let the leftists finish their journey to utopia

I'll allow it.

 

[EasternVol]

the core samples aren't precise enough to tell us the temperatures only rose 0.01 degree Celcius on average over a decade, so the 0.02 degree Celcius difference can only be explained by humans.

even the cores don't tell us the actual temperatures, what it tells us is a whole bunch of different conditions existed in a manner that produced the results that we see in the core. pretty much none of it is solely, or even a majority, explained by temperatures.

its very unlikely the only condition that changed was the temperature in those core samples.

This may be of interest:

Ice core basics

How can we use ice cores to understand past climate? What information can we get from ice cores?

www.antarcticglaciers.org

 

[Volnanza]

We have data going back much longer than that. Are you familiar with core samples?

That may give you a very narrow glimpse into the composition of the atmosphere. After that, assumptions are made (not always bad) as to why it was the way it was. The most interesting thing about the samples is that it spans multiple heating and cooling periods. If you go into the data with a goal that you are going to prove man made climate change, then any studies you do will be skewed to do just that. I have read some studies that indicate that co2 is actually a lagging indicator of climate change.