Global warming explained once and for all. IPCC says: nothing to worry about

[BADecker]

Nothing to worry about?
The climate has already changed and we have to act fast if we want to overcome the worst.
There are so many extreme changes in the temperature of my region that are not normal. You can feel the disaster without being a scientist.

If you were sincere, you wouldn't be on the forum. You would have done your part by ditching modern technology long ago. You'd be living like the Amish, who never really got into technology.


Amazing moment 300 Amish men lift a huge barn with their bare hands and move it across a field.

Amazing video shows about 300 Amish men working in tandem to lift an enormous shed in a rural part of the country.

One man is heard giving directions to the men as they grab the skeleton of the red farmhouse.

When viewing the spectacle from afar, the men's legs are seen sticking out from the bottom as they toil in unison to lift the enormous structure.

'You see all the feet moving?' the woman who filmed the scene says in amazement.

At one point, the men continue to move the shed but the structure is lowered toward the ground, concealing their feet.

It made it appear as if the shed was moving on its own.

In the Amish community, when one member needs help, their neighbors pitch in and lend a hand.

[1715027766]

1715027766

[1715027766]

1715027766

[1715027766]

1715027766

[Cootie]

Nothing to worry about what? About the temperature reaching its upper limit? How about its effect in nature? I don't think its gonna be that easy. Yes, the earth has a way to compensate for it and that might get extreme for humans. You see we are experiencing lots of abnormal phenomenon and global warming might be a part of it. It's not nothing to worry about. It kills people, it damages property. It's must not be taken for granted just because some scientists or reports says it reach its peak.

[Vod]

Nothing to worry about what? About the temperature reaching its upper limit? How about its effect in nature? I don't think its gonna be that easy. Yes, the earth has a way to compensate for it and that might get extreme for humans. You see we are experiencing lots of abnormal phenomenon and global warming might be a part of it. It's not nothing to worry about. It kills people, it damages property. It's must not be taken for granted just because some scientists or reports says it reach its peak.

It always comes down to now.  It's why people drink or smoke or eat.  We crave the dopamine hit and want it now.   A less intelligent animal (i.e. mouse) would starve to death in favor of dopamine.

We are asking everyone who has worked hard to stop wanting more stuff.   We are asking billions in third world countries to not want what we have. 

We are asking everyone to deny themselves dopamine, which goes against millions of years of evolution.  It's much easier to ask the next generation to do it.

[franky1]

comparing the temperature to the 1800's is a little silly.
after all in London they had the 'frost fair' where by it was so cold that the river Thames completely froze over.
sorry but thats not 'norm' level to compare against.

UK can go from -2^oc for an average winter. to 28^oC average summer

thats 30^o normal variance. and so 1.5^o is only 5% variance

but here is the funny thing.
the different charts for the last 200 years actually have this say 5% offset.
yes we should ofcourse expect 5% high temperatures than the average.
but the fture is not the only years that experienced this 5% offset to the average

its kind of funny how they can pretend that temperature change has only moved by 0.x^oC
since the 1600
yet 'the little iceage' in the 1700-1900 proves otherwise

london chimney sweeps were the best business in town because everyone needed their chimneys cleaned regularly because it was always cold and they always needed their fires on
irish famine due to bad weather previous seasons causing potato rot that ruined crops for years


seems these silly graphs of 'averaged' lines that strangely only moved 0.x^oc.. have made people to actually forget real history
..
and who the hell decided to choose the 1950's-80's as a base period to then say whats + or -

plants dont like the cold. plants dont like low carbon.
so whats to say what is healthy for the planet to grow.. vs people to live without sunburn vs frost burn

are these numbers in favour of planet or human comfort
all i know is that NEVER, EVER in the history of eternaty has this planet ever had a nice happy human loving base temperature of 17^oc long term
..
im not a climate denier or a anti-science. but some of these graphs have actual flaws which do not help them
plus you gotta laugh when they say that london is more smoggy now than in the 1800's. that is like the biggest farse known to man

[Spendulus]

....

plants dont like the cold. plants dont like low carbon.
...

Cold is an order of magnitude more deadly than an equal increase in heat.

[franky1]

....

plants dont like the cold. plants dont like low carbon.
...

Cold is an order of magnitude more deadly than an equal increase in heat.

but when nature loves the temperature of 22-27^oc saying the 'average temperature of 17^oc is going up by 1-2^oc. doesnt seem to be a 'globe threat' but a human sweat threat

im all for the science of what caused what. but when graphs are shown as only 95% confident. and choosing a base line not based on the temperature that is actually healthiest for plant growth. kinda makes the numbers less meaningful.
take the temperature measures. they actually have graphs where it shows they tweak the numbers to have a consistent 'dry days' chart

they also have charts of 'hottest recorded day'
al of this sways to show hot hot hot data

yet if they just took data as is. and included the coldest days too. they would not be beating the drum of 'global warming' but in actual fact it would be climate change. (because the numbers for the cold has changed just as much as the hot

yep they are saying that the 1950's1980's america is hotter then say the 1850-1920's
yet for instance. the 'dustbowl' of the 1930's (hot)
yet for instance the US coldest day was recorded in alaska in 1971 (80 degree below zero) and previously in montana was 70 degrees below 0 in 1954
yep it was colder in the 1970s than it was in the 1950's than is was compared to pre industrial levels

colds getting colder hots getting hotter. = climate change not global warming
..
yes i believe many aspects are man made. such as making all the dams across the US caused water to fill in large lakes which keep the water col to not evaporate as much as it would flowing freely in creeks, streams and farmland. (dustbowl wouldnt have happened as badly in the 30's if dams were not made)

humans shifting the natural river courses for irrigation causes different area's to suddenly dry up

concrete over land(making cities) stops water soaking into land (less ground water) = less water in underground aquifers
which does impact real life stuff

california's 'salton sea' dries up because they dammed the river that used to feed it so that cities in california can tap into it instead

..
im all for actual science discovery. but not when they tweak the numbers to exacerbate the situation or make it seem more related to carbon. when the reality is infrastructure like dams, water tables, and land moisture absorption.
my research is more about how the brazilian RAIN forest being chopped down. causes negative MOISTURE impacts(RAIN) its a rainforest, not a carbon forest after all

[Spendulus]

....

plants dont like the cold. plants dont like low carbon.
...

Cold is an order of magnitude more deadly than an equal increase in heat.

but when nature loves the temperature of 22-27^oc saying the 'average temperature of 17^oc is going up by 1-2^oc. doesnt seem to be a 'globe threat' but a human sweat threat

im all for the science of what caused what. but when graphs are shown as only 95% confident. and choosing a base line not based on the temperature that is actually healthiest for plant growth. kinda makes the numbers less meaningful.
take the temperature measures. they actually have graphs where it shows they tweak the numbers to have a consistent 'dry days' chart

they also have charts of 'hottest recorded day'
al of this sways to show hot hot hot data

yet if they just took data as is. and included the coldest days too. they would not be beating the drum of 'global warming' but in actual fact it would be climate change. (because the numbers for the cold has changed just as much as the hot

yep they are saying that the 1950's1980's america is hotter then say the 1850-1920's
yet for instance. the 'dustbowl' of the 1930's (hot)
yet for instance the US coldest day was recorded in alaska in 1971 (80 degree below zero) and previously in montana was 70 degrees below 0 in 1954
yep it was colder in the 1970s than it was in the 1950's than is was compared to pre industrial levels

colds getting colder hots getting hotter. = climate change not global warming
..
yes i believe many aspects are man made. such as making all the dams across the US caused water to fill in large lakes which keep the water col to not evaporate as much as it would flowing freely in creeks, streams and farmland. (dustbowl wouldnt have happened as badly in the 30's if dams were not made)

humans shifting the natural river courses for irrigation causes different area's to suddenly dry up

concrete over land(making cities) stops water soaking into land (less ground water) = less water in underground aquifers
which does impact real life stuff

california's 'salton sea' dries up because they dammed the river that used to feed it so that cities in california can tap into it instead

..
im all for actual science discovery. but not when they tweak the numbers to exacerbate the situation or make it seem more related to carbon. when the reality is infrastructure like dams, water tables, and land moisture absorption.
my research is more about how the brazilian RAIN forest being chopped down. causes negative MOISTURE impacts(RAIN) its a rainforest, not a carbon forest after all

There are ocean currents which operate on a 60-80 year cycle, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which overlay cold-hot-cold-hot patterns on weather. For example, your note of 1950-1980 and so forth.

[BADecker]

Now the media is coming out with the fact that governments and science have been trying to control global warming for some time... in unorthodox ways... like chemtrails.


First it was a “conspiracy theory,” now the mainstream media says geoengineering will fix global warming

It was not all that long ago when any talk about geoengineering or “chemtrails” drew ridicule from the establishment, which insisted that weather modification of any kind was just some wild “conspiracy theory.” Well, now that same establishment is openly admitting that geoengineering is real, and that it is supposedly being used to “cool” the planet from the damaging effects of “global warming.”

In a piece recently published by Bloomberg, as well as republished by MSN, a writer named Gernot Wagner lays out how blocking natural sunlight – and no, this is not satire – using damaging chemicals much like the ones emitted from a volcanic eruption can allegedly help to keep planet earth from overheating from climate change.

“Large-scale tech,” he says, can effectively “re-create the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption,” at least in theory. By releasing untold tons of sulfur dioxide, or SO2, into the stratosphere, weather modification airplanes could potentially block out enough sunlight to bring atmospheric temperatures down to where climate scientists believe they should be.

Rather than continue to try to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which could take decades to see any results, blasting the skies with SO2 would bring about changes in a matter of weeks, Wagner contends. Though “imperfect and risky,” it is apparently worth trying, much like “an experimental drug taken in a pandemic.”

Mainstream media still foolishly calling CO2 a “pollutant”

Amazingly, Wagner is also pushing the same anti-CO2 propaganda as NBC News, which declared back in early 2019 that CO2 is a “pollutant” that must be eradicated if humanity is to have any future on the planet.

[franky1]

....

plants dont like the cold. plants dont like low carbon.
...

Cold is an order of magnitude more deadly than an equal increase in heat.

not really
if an average comfortable temperature for humans is ~20^oc (15-25)
alot more people suffer at 40 than they do at 0
inuits/eskimos live hundreds of generations at -10 but how long can people live at 50
so yea i can see the fear of temperature rise.

but the whole 'carbon effects the green house gas' stuff.. has nothing to do with ground temperatures at all
thats stratosphere talk not troposphere

it would be better to say about how the carbon falls in snow/rain and turns the ice sheets black thus making them melt thus changing the temperature and such. but being vague and saying its a greenhouse gas thing. just doesnt grasp the detail and makes things very iffy.

also the whole '0.x^oc' is just not really compelling fear. especially when there is usually a 30^oc swing in temperature depending on seasons. a 0.x^oc just becomes a marginal statistical error probablity amount

what is more concerning is that in places near jakarta pretend the sea level rise is huge...
but actual sea level rise is only millimeters a year. but the ground subsidence is alot more. thus making it look like the sea is rising, where as the truth is the land is falling

yep indonesia pollute river water so companies grab at the underground water to bottle, wash, farm with, which cause the land to subside

too many idiots with half sciences always try to blame carbon. yet carbon is far far lower than the 1800's
the reason people dont know this. is because the measuring techniques changed in ~1960 which has offset/hidden the real value pre-1960 because the real value pre1960 was limited
if people think london is more smoggy than the 1800. then they are reading the wrong fact sheets

[BADecker]

^^^ But Eskimos would move to warmer lands if they could only break their habits of cold-land life. I mean, back when the Northern lands were a tropical paradise, their ancestors lived like equatorial islanders.