Is Global Warming Real?

[franky1]

i agree with styca
by warming the poles will make the north atlantic change. it wiil push the gulf stream more to the equator thus spain and african water would get hotter and UK wont get that gulf stream boost.. thus UK would get colder

yes the balance between hot and cold air would cause more hurricanes, tornadoes and such but would also change where they usually land. EG different american states would get them, more islands around the american mexico area would get affected
and france spain would eventually get the tail end of it instead of the UK

thus different area's would experience different weather patterns than they are used to.
africa would get extremely warmer and have more issues with drought. where as UK would get colder and have more issues with floods

so the many degrees higher africa would get which on such a wide area has more warmer sway than the thinner belt of colder results of the north, which when balancing out the 'average' change around the planet would be seen as an average increase

my issues isnt about that climate is occuring
my issue is that calling it 'global warming' is too simplified and explains nothing
my issue is that it aint carbon causing it but the change in water vapour dynamic
my other issue is that land developers are deforesting rain forests and also making 'beach front' properties and buying up cheap flood plain land and converting it to housing and thus eventually causing lots of issues
there have been soo many homes made on flood plains then people stupidly get surprised their house is ankle deep in water after the winter thaw

my final issue is not just blaming carbon. but then when doing all the 'carbon tax' and environmental investment. instead of using the funds or making laws that for every tree chopped another should be planted. the funds are instead being given to large companies who just use it unwisely like to cover insurance premiums to make it cheap to build on flood plains and build beach front wave defense walls to make it allowable to construct beach front property on land that should not be suitable to build on

[star7dust]

Of course global warming is real, if you don't see it you must be blind! The global warming is an important issue but even if you don't believe in it you can't ignore that our planet is dying

[kro55]

Yes global warming is real. Sea level are rising, glaciers are melting at much faster pace, abnormal weather change, floods and many more are enough to prove that we are destroying the mother earth.

[styca]

my issues isnt about that climate is occuring
my issue is that calling it 'global warming' is too simplified and explains nothing
my issue is that it aint carbon causing it but the change in water vapour dynamic
my other issue is that land developers are deforesting rain forests and also making 'beach front' properties and buying up cheap flood plain land and converting it to housing and thus eventually causing lots of issues
there have been soo many homes made on flood plains then people stupidly get surprised their house is ankle deep in water after the winter thaw

my final issue is not just blaming carbon. but then when doing all the 'carbon tax' and environmental investment. instead of using the funds or making laws that for every tree chopped another should be planted. the funds are instead being given to large companies who just us it unwisely like to cover insurance premiums to make it chap to build on flood plains and build beach front wave defense walls to make it allowable to construct beach front property on land that should not be suitable to build on

Agree with all of that. Climate change deniers are the vested interests who have money to lose by admitting it is happening. Half of the UK is knee-deep in water right now, but building on flood plains will continue unabated for so long as there is someone who can make money from it.

[franky1]

Agree with all of that. Climate change deniers are the vested interests who have money to lose by admitting it is happening. Half of the UK is knee-deep in water right now, but building on flood plains will continue unabated for so long as there is someone who can make money from it.

i think the term 'global warming'. is too abstract. i prefer the term 'climate change'

[Spendulus]

Agree with all of that. Climate change deniers are the vested interests who have money to lose by admitting it is happening. Half of the UK is knee-deep in water right now, but building on flood plains will continue unabated for so long as there is someone who can make money from it.

i think the term 'global warming'. is too abstract. i prefer the term 'climate change'

Really, any one babbling about global warming is exactly a Climate Change Denier.

Hello, Styca!

[tvbcof]

No, I mean literally that you are spewing nonsense. Sure it's just what you were told, does not matter. Look at it...

....global warming doesn't mean ...warmer
 ... on average,... more volaitle weather
...global warming = disruption.
... More droughts and heatwaves,
... stronger hurricanes,
... worse rainfall and flooding
... colder winters.

If something means everything, then it means nothing.

The items enumerated are a good match for what one would expect to see from global geo-engineering, and especially if it is weaponized for geo-political reasons or simply used to make money (e.g., 'weather derivatives').  The idea of using weather against one's 'enemies' has been around forever.  The motto for Operation Popeye in the Vietnam war ('the American war' to the Vietnamese) was 'make mud, not war'.  This stuff is not especially 'conspiratorial'.  It's history.

Although 'they' have not quite admitted that 'solar radiation management' has been underway, they are pretty openly talking about it as something they are going to need to 'try' really soon in order to save the world from the 'existential thread' of climate changed caused by the fraction of the part-per-million of the CO2 that humans are responsible for with CO2 being admittedly only a minor 'greenhouse gas' in the atmosphere anyway.

They also made a big predictive programming push to seed the idea that 'once we start we it won't be safe to ever stop' a couple years ago.  They never even really tried to justify why that might be.  Just said it...over and over again.

Interestingly, it's the people who think they are so against war and against 'evil corporations' who are especially prone to fall for this bullshit.  Mostly because it is marketed as being associated with socialism I guess.  Socialists are most comfortable with a central authority managing things.  Only secondarily if at all to they stop to ponder the nature of that authority.  Usually never if NPR (the U.S.'s state run media) doesn't tell them they should.

[BADecker]

The bottom-line point is, talking about global warming does 2 things:
1. Provides for fun conversation;
2. Doesn't change what the weather will be.

[paskah01]

The bottom-line point is, talking about global warming does 2 things:
1. Provides for fun conversation;
2. Doesn't change what the weather will be.

Lol yeah but also it's really good to speak out and raise awareness which can impact the weather in the future.

[styca]

Agree with all of that. Climate change deniers are the vested interests who have money to lose by admitting it is happening. Half of the UK is knee-deep in water right now, but building on flood plains will continue unabated for so long as there is someone who can make money from it.

i think the term 'global warming'. is too abstract. i prefer the term 'climate change'

You're right. And the term 'global warming' can lead people towards the mistaken assumption that it means warmer everywhere all the time - as indeed it has done already several times in this thread.
I will use 'climate change' from now on.

It is scary how rapidly climate change seems to be accelerating - or at least the visible effects. Just in the last two years where I live, we've had both the longest, hottest, driest summer I remember, month after month of sun, with the grass bleached white... plus we've had the wettest autumn with the heaviest floods, as I say, I've literally been knee-deep in water myself, wading from one side of town to the other.

[tvbcof]

It is scary how rapidly climate change seems to be accelerating - or at least the visible effects. Just in the last two years where I live, we've had both the longest, hottest, driest summer I remember, month after month of sun, with the grass bleached white... plus we've had the wettest autumn with the heaviest floods, as I say, I've literally been knee-deep in water myself, wading from one side of town to the other.

Kind of a good match for the 'experiments' they are doing in strategically spraying particles into the upper atmosphere.

Also using the 'atmospheric rivers' of water as basically global irrigation system which us much cheaper than laying pipe.

  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07533-4

The 'bleaching' I noticed on the grass at my rural place about 4 years ago rubbed right off.  I tasted a little of it and could detect nothing.  Rather than have it sent in for laboratory testing (or buying some lab equipment and doing it myself) I simply left the country.

[Naida_BR]

Yes global warming is real. Sea level are rising, glaciers are melting at much faster pace, abnormal weather change, floods and many more are enough to prove that we are destroying the mother earth.

The climate change is so rampant.
It is already December (Winter) and in my country we have almost 25 degrees Celcius.
That's totally not normal, usually during this period we are 10 degrees lower. And I feel that the same happens and in other places around the world causing significant negative results to places like Antarctica.

[BADecker]

^^^ The other side is, while the bitter cold that has been forecast for the US Midwest, probably isn't as cold as was expected. This doesn't mean that it is average. It's still way below average. It's just not as cold as was expected.

However, you can find people in the Midwest who will disagree with my suggestion that it isn't as cold as was expected. Some might say it's colder.

[BADecker]

Go to the site for links to backup data, and for the videos.


Climate Change - 'The Sun Did It'...

My way of looking at it is that the evidence that we do have leads me to think that things are not as bad as what they're predicting. However, if they are right — and they could be, I acknowledge that — if they are right, the policies we've put into place are woefully inadequate. I can hope that the more pragmatic people that Trump is appointing will come up with more pragmatic ways of dealing with the vulnerabilities that we do have to climate change, whether it's caused by humans or it's caused naturally, and how we should deal with the potential risk of a lot of warming from humans.



1. Climate Models for the layman." We discuss the history and purpose of climate modeling, their uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity, and what we can or cannot learn from their study.

SHOW NOTES

Dr. Curry's blog

Dr. Curry's resignation post

Climate Models for the layman

Climate scientists open up their black boxes to scrutiny

2. Climate Models for the Layman with Dr. Judith Curry

3. Judith Curry retires, citing 'craziness' of climate science

Scott Waldman, E&E News reporter - https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060047798

Climatewire: Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Judith Curry

Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology speaks during a Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing on "Data or Dogma" in 2015. Photo by Ken Cendeno, courtesy of Greenpeace.

Judith Curry, one of climate science's most vocal critics, is leaving academe because of what she calls the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around human-caused global warming.

Curry, 63, is retiring from her tenured position as a professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She's instead going to focus on growing her private business, Climate Forecast Applications Network, which provides insights into climate and weather risks for agriculture and energy companies.

The climatologist, who distinguished herself in the field decades ago with research into the Arctic and the causes of the climate feedback that have shaped the region, writes a blog called Climate Etc. It is by turns academic and inflammatory.

There she occasionally mocks what she calls "climate alarmists" who say time is almost out unless humanity weans itself off fossil fuels. In her blog and on Twitter, she has also criticized some of the scientists, including Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann and Harvard University climate historian Naomi Oreskes, who have become leading voices for climate action. She has testified in front of Congress, boosted by politicians who use her work to argue that environmental regulations and a scaling down of fossil fuel use will be ineffective. Her work is frequently invoked by climate skeptics and denialists. Congressional Democrats, displeased with her conclusions, have investigated the source of her funding.

Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

Where many scientists say that humans are the primary cause of warming, Curry believes natural forces play a larger role. She also believes that uncertainty around climate models means we don't have to act so quickly and that current plans would do little to mitigate warming. She also questions the assertion made by a majority of climate scientists who believe humans have significantly contributed to climate change. In the Obama years, she has become a contrarian of sorts, often criticizing those who rely on climate models to prove that humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

In announcing her retirement, Curry wrote about what she called her "growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists." She said a deciding factor for leaving the ivory tower was that "I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," adding that research and funding for it are highly politicized.

In an interview with E&E News, Curry said she would like to see a greater focus on the uncertainties of climate science and a better exploration of them through scientific debate free of politics.

"Once you understand the scientific uncertainties, the present policy path that we're on doesn't make a lot of sense," she said. "We need to open up policy dialogue to a bigger solution space. So I'm just looking to open up the dialogue and to provoke people into thinking."

Curry, in general, believes that the policies undertaken by the Obama administration won't do much to reduce global warming levels. That has made her the target of scientists who accuse her of aiding the climate denialists who oppose the environmental regulations of the last eight years and are eager to dismantle them under President-elect Donald Trump. Curry is not convinced that Trump will damage the climate science field, which she said has gone in the wrong direction under Obama.

[BobBct]

I also believe that global warming is real and not a conspiracy. Climate changes and we can personally feel it. Before the rain patter are different and now it changes drastically. Before summer is bearable but not in some countries it is extremely hot and hard to manage.  There are factor that we personally experience that, yes there is a bigger problem out there because of the result of the worlds industrialization.

[AlmazWin]

I think so, there will soon be global warming, people are clogging up not only the earth but also space. And this is not normal

[paskah01]

Anyone can say it's not real - or real. But it does not matter.

Sometimes you go too deep into the question till you realize you're not going anywhere.

Either it's real or not, if we can do things that are good for both us and earth, why not?
Why wait till it went worse?

For me i think, blockchain technology is one of the world's mass solution to reduce things that caused global warming. If you think global warming is real, or not (yet), imo you guys should start knowing and learning about this kind of knowledges. There are a lot of ways of course, but here in case you want to know the brief explanations of how tech like blockchain can help :

https://blogchainzoo.com/climate-blockchange/

[Spendulus]

Anyone can say it's not real - or real. But it does not matter.

Sometimes you go too deep into the question till you realize you're not going anywhere.

Either it's real or not, if we can do things that are good for both us and earth, why not?
Why wait till it went worse?

For me i think, blockchain technology is one of the world's mass solution to reduce things that caused global warming. If you think global warming is real, or not (yet), imo you guys should start knowing and learning about this kind of knowledges. There are a lot of ways of course, but here in case you want to know the brief explanations of how tech like blockchain can help :

https://blogchainzoo.com/climate-blockchange/

That's all propaganda and political talking points.

The fundamental and real thing that a blockchain could do for climate change issues would be for the raw temperature measured values to be put on a blockchain, along with all the "adjustments" made to them and the reasons for each.

That would be a scientific starting point for accurately understanding climate change. But a lot of powerful forces would be opposed to that.

[paskah01]

Anyone can say it's not real - or real. But it does not matter.

Sometimes you go too deep into the question till you realize you're not going anywhere.

Either it's real or not, if we can do things that are good for both us and earth, why not?
Why wait till it went worse?

For me i think, blockchain technology is one of the world's mass solution to reduce things that caused global warming. If you think global warming is real, or not (yet), imo you guys should start knowing and learning about this kind of knowledges. There are a lot of ways of course, but here in case you want to know the brief explanations of how tech like blockchain can help :

https://blogchainzoo.com/climate-blockchange/

That's all propaganda and political talking points.

The fundamental and real thing that a blockchain could do for climate change issues would be for the raw temperature measured values to be put on a blockchain, along with all the "adjustments" made to them and the reasons for each.

That would be a scientific starting point for accurately understanding climate change. But a lot of powerful forces would be opposed to that.

Very good point. I agree, but also i think it's something we all should fight for. Decentralization and Transperancy is what this modern civilization market need beside that fact that some blockchain company will try to "adjust" it for their purpose as you said. This tech imo will minimalize the impact..

[Spendulus]

Anyone can say it's not real - or real. But it does not matter.

Sometimes you go too deep into the question till you realize you're not going anywhere.

Either it's real or not, if we can do things that are good for both us and earth, why not?
Why wait till it went worse?

For me i think, blockchain technology is one of the world's mass solution to reduce things that caused global warming. If you think global warming is real, or not (yet), imo you guys should start knowing and learning about this kind of knowledges. There are a lot of ways of course, but here in case you want to know the brief explanations of how tech like blockchain can help :

https://blogchainzoo.com/climate-blockchange/

That's all propaganda and political talking points.

The fundamental and real thing that a blockchain could do for climate change issues would be for the raw temperature measured values to be put on a blockchain, along with all the "adjustments" made to them and the reasons for each.

That would be a scientific starting point for accurately understanding climate change. But a lot of powerful forces would be opposed to that.

Very good point. I agree, but also i think it's something we all should fight for. Decentralization and Transperancy is what this modern civilization market need beside that fact that some blockchain company will try to "adjust" it for their purpose as you said. This tech imo will minimalize the impact..

What reality is is that the "adjustments" to world and regional temperature values have been monkeyed with for decades, and those doing the changes have not adequately explained them to people who asked for explanations.

This makes it nearly impossible to establish factually whether there has been "global warming" and to what extent.