We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what?

[George²]

But, the temperatures still sputtered back to "warmer" about every 50,000 years until about 900,000 years ago, when the interglacial periods started coming only about 100,000 years.

We have not enough precise resolution when see climate changes too far in past.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Ken, Looking at your linked graph for temperature (proxy), the long flat period of the last 10,000 years actually starts to go down at about the point where the arrow points with "Civilization started here". But, I don't think you are trying to tell us that "civilization" is responsible for cooling the planet.

And, that data about ice loss rates sounds large, but it is nothing compared to the ice loss rates that occurred from the North American and Eurasian ice sheets around 20,000 years ago, when the temperatures were shown to be substantially lower on that graph.

So, cherry picking data to make your point is not really a credible way to convince others that humans are "to blame" for the climate not doing exactly what we wish it would do.

Longer time periods, like hundreds of millions of years, are needed to show that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are probably one of the big factors in long-term average global temperature. As Helio and I are discussing, looking at the temperature trends for just the last ice age seems to show more about how temperature increase can cause CO2 increase, instead of showing how CO2 increase can cause temperature increase. The inter-relationship is actually pretty complex, with both water and CO2 going in and out of solid repositories for many reasons, including vegetation changes, volcanism and fires as well as human activities. Methane also needs to be included. And how it all works together also depends on how the continents are positioned around the globe. It just is not simple enough to point at a few things and say they explain what is happening right now.

But, it is true that changes are occurring right now, and that those changes have substantial implications for humans and civilization. Yes, we can extrapolate the trends we see today for some short times into the future and predict that we are going to have problems, even if we cannot say exactly when with great accuracy.

But, focusing on a desire to stabilize our global climate to the conditions we have now is naïve, because those graphs tell us that global climate has not usually been like it is now for the last few million years. We can expect it to change naturally - so we need to be flexible and deal with it. It especially irritates me that politicians are focusing on "stopping" sea level rise. We cannot do that and they should know that. We are going to need to deal with it.

But, if there was going to be another glaciation that would cover most of the U.S. and Europe in deep ice, we would have major concerns about that too, along with the problems that most of our seaports would end up with no water in them and be located many miles from the new coastlines.

The real problem for humans is that we are so numerous that we conflict with each other instead of cooperating with each other. So, as climates change and subpopulations need to move, that will probably cause wars. And, if people can't move, that will probably cause famines.

So, we are really the cause of our own problems, and more of those problems are about over-population than about climate change. But, yes, humans are messing up the planet for all species here, not just ourselves.

 

[scvblwxq]

The new "Climate" the UN/IPCC/WMO and the investors are talking about is the 30-year weather that was renamed the "Climate" by them.

The long-term climate of the Earth is still a 2.56 million-year ice age and that is not changing until all the natural ice on Earth melts.

Quaternary glaciation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[scvblwxq]

I agree 100%. Thanks to Uncle Sam I have a core background in Nuclear Physics, and Electrical Power Generation and Distribution. I also have hands on experience with oil fired steam plants, gas turbine power plants, analog and digital electronics, mechanics, heat transfer and fluid flow, power plant water chemistry, hydraulics, pneumatics, diesel engines, gasoline engines, astronomy, astrophotography, GPS positioning technology and GPS assisted autonomous UAV construction, maintenance and operation.

I question everything. If a person makes a claim but does not have verifiable data to back it up, I ignore them. By the same token if a person like Al Gore says one thing and then does another they are added to my liars list. Regardless of what I have read or heard from the "experts" and MSM talking heads, NO ONE has been able to convince me that climate change is real. I go back and look at the Global Warming days, and all the Climate Changers have done is put lipstick on the Global Warming pig.

 

[OldGazer]

As I suspected would happen the responses are all over the place but there are some critical factor factors that are conspicuous by there absence: Money and Political Power.

I will be the first to admit that we as an intelligent self aware species have a penchant for doing things that are not in our ecological best interests, but the real "drivers" behind the myth of global warming/climate change have their roots in politics and greed. This is inescapable and yet every one who supports climate change seems to turn blind eyes and deaf ears to what is happening in the back round. Follow the political power and money vectors and you will see what the real driving forces are behind the push for carbon neutrality. Here is a starter for you: The best way to tell if a politician is lying is their lips are moving.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

As I suspected would happen the responses are all over the place but there are some critical factor factors that are conspicuous by there absence: Money and Political Power.

I will be the first to admit that we as an intelligent self aware species have a penchant for doing things that are not in our ecological best interests, but the real "drivers" behind the myth of global warming/climate change have their roots in politics and greed. This is inescapable and yet every one who supports climate change seems to turn blind eyes and deaf ears to what is happening in the back ound. Follow the political power and money vectors and you will see what the real driving forces are behind the push for carbon neutrality. Here is a starter for you: The best way to tell if a politician is lying is their lips are moving.

That seems like a non-starter of an argument for a conspiracy theory.

If you look at the money interests, you quickly see that the major industrial players and unions are not happy with the push for "green" energy, electric cars, etc. So, where are all of these potential profits that are driving the "powers" to get the politicians to lie to us so that they can get even richer? Most of the new "green" players are start-up companies, compared to General Motors, the oil industry, the United Auto Workers, etc.

Here's the clincher for you "You can tell when an Internet poster is wrong when his own arguments are the best evidence that what he is posting really isn't true."

 

[COLGeek]

I think we'll draw this thread to a close now. Thanks to all for the dynamic conversation.