Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You might want to do a little more research, maybe something involving early Chinese history.

You are beyond stupid and are the last person to give me a history lesson. It never happened.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You might want to do a little more research, maybe something involving early Chinese history.

You are beyond stupid and are the last person to give me a history lesson. It never happened.

Global Warming: Historical Cycles


To understand the phenomenon of global warming, one needs to look at the history of climate patterns over the ages.

For instance, when the Danes settled Greenland over one thousand years ago there was much less ice there. But we need to go back even further.

Many centuries ago the earth was tilted on a different axis. It is now acknowledged that the earth’s axis rotates on a 22,600-odd year cycle. The magnetic poles have shifted in many directions on a regular basis, which we can demonstrate historically and archeologically.

What else influences our climate?

The difference in tilt of the axis with the south away from the sun saw the levels of precipitation increase in Africa. There was thus a higher incidence of fresh water lakes in Africa, Australia and elsewhere. This explains the Piry Reis map of 1513 (compiled from ancient maps in the library at Alexandria before it was burnt by Muslims in the seventh century) showing rivers and lakes in Africa where now there are only depressions and desert (cf. Cyrus Gordon, Before Columbus, Turnstone Press Ltd, 1972, pp. 71-73).

Factors of Change:

1. Rotation of the Earth’s Axis

The El Nino/ La Nina Effects via temperature changes over the Pacific on a regular basis:

Catastrophic events:
- major floods e.g. 1513 massive floods in Holland
- volcanic activity
- earthquakes
- tsunamis
To name a few.

Fluctuations of sea levels are caused by
o Earthquakes
o Movements of the caps – at present the North Pole is totally in water and the South Pole is on land – melted ice from Poles on land will increase the sea levels.
o There is enough ice on the Greenland cap to raise world sea levels by 6 metres and the same amount in the West Antarctic basin. Melt of the East Antarctic basin would lift world sea levels over 60 metres. Superheating will cause up to another 30 metres.
o If the North Pole was on land it would drop world sea levels by between 40 and 60 metres. Temperatures are rising in the West Antarctic Basin faster than anywhere else on earth. Temperature increase is increasing precipitation on the East Basin and it is rising faster than previously experienced.
o Cosmic snowballs (see article, Robert S. Boyd, Cosmic Snowballs, St Paul Pioneer Express, 29 May 1997).

2. Solar Activity

Regular cycles
There is a regular 11.1-year solar cycle. We peaked in that cycle in 2012.

Warm period cycles that occur approximately every 1000 years and which increase earth temperatures by around 2 to 2.5 degrees for at least four to six centuries.

The Warm cycles are followed by the Cold cycles which reduce temperature by a similar amount depending on the solar activity.

The last major one is the Little Ice Age from 1450. The previous one is termed the Bond Cycle that brought in the Dark Ages and dropped the coastlines by over 7 feet worldwide.

Another cycle is called the de Vries Cycle which occurs approximately every 210 years.

The de Vries Cycle
See article at http://www.co2science.org/articles/VII/N23/EDIT.php

The Bond Cycle
See the work The Physical Evidence of Earth’s Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle.

This cycle is not 1500 years as now claimed but is 1000 years. A Warm period and an Ice Age occur every 1000 years alternating for approximately 500-year periods. The error was made by taking ice layers in the caps as yearly levels instead of seasonal fluctuation.

800 to 1250 and a fluctuation ca. 1450 CE Medieval Warm Period.

We know for a fact that prior to 1434 the Chinese took it as normal to sail over the Arctic into the Atlantic in summer up until 1250 and possibly up until 1434 when their navy visited Europe via Suez and the Nile-Suez Canal. They sailed to Italy and visited Florence under the De Medici. Many of their inventions and probable maps were used by the Europeans.

ca. 950 1100 CE​warmest part of the Medieval Warm Period

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

until 1434 when their navy visited Europe via Suez and the Nile-Suez Canal.

The Suez canal was not built until 1869.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Canal

Originally Posted by RPETER65

They sailed to Italy and visited Florence under the De Medici.

I googled part of your article and this link popped up;

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...CuT3SQ&cad=rja

Some whack job christian website. CCG

Again you attack the sight but do nothing to refute the writings on climate cycles, typical libtard look the other way if you might see something that could go against your globalist agenda. By the way I would have no interest in teaching you anything,if you wish to continue living in the dark, up to you.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Again you attack the sight but do nothing to refute the writings on climate cycles

You are so fucking stupid I am having a deep belly laugh. You actually believe that the Chinese sailed through a Suez canal in 1434 when it was not even built until 1870. The entire article is a laughing stock and beyond stupid.

You are the stupidest retard on the forum for buying into this shit.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Again you attack the sight but do nothing to refute the writings on climate cycles

You are so fucking stupid I am having a deep belly laugh. You actually believe that the Chinese sailed through a Suez canal in 1434 when it was not even built until 1870. The entire article is a laughing stock and beyond stupid.

You are the stupidest retard on the forum for buying into this shit.

Again you attack the sight because one thing and the author but you don't address the cyclical climate discussion, isn't that like saying Hillary sent only personal emails because she sent one personal email.
You stated earlier climate change is not the same as temperature change, again I ask don't the two go together?

Roald Amundsen sailed the arctic from the atlantic to the pacific in 1904 with a primitive ship, no gps, no nothing. Was it man made global warming in 1904? No it was climate variability. They are trying to panic you with normal climactic variability.

Notice how the loonyleftards ignore my post on the Dust Bowl of the 30s in the US. That's because they have no answer to it. If it happened now theyd use it as evidence supporting their views, because it happened 50 years before their lies started they ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. They try to persuade all readers that the tiny climactic storms happening now and then are way worse then the 5 year drought in the 30s when they cant hold a candle to it.

And that's not even to mention that the climate record shows a drought in sw us that lasted from approx. the year 1000 to 1500 with only about 50 years of what we consider normal rainfall. The climate changes, it has changed in recent memory and they are scrambling to use all and any events no matter how small to convince you to grant them huge power increases which I promise you will make your lives miserable but guess what not theirs.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Notice how the loonyleftards ignore my post on the Dust Bowl of the 30s in the US. That's because they have no answer to it. If it happened now theyd use it as evidence supporting their views, because it happened 50 years before their lies started they ignore it, pretend it didn't happen. They try to persuade all readers that the tiny climactic storms happening now and then are way worse then the 5 year drought in the 30s when they cant hold a candle to it.

And that's not even to mention that the climate record shows a drought in sw us that lasted from approx. the year 1000 to 1500 with only about 50 years of what we consider normal rainfall. The climate changes, it has changed in recent memory and they are scrambling to use all and any events no matter how small to convince you to grant them huge power increases which I promise you will make your lives miserable but guess what not theirs.

No basis in science, just stupid fucking stories.

Here's an easy picture for you to understand, because obviously words at too complicated for you.

They post faked info from extreme green controlled sites, no one anywhere is complaining of high temps except the greens who use it to try and gain control.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

They post faked info from extreme green controlled sites, no one anywhere is complaining of high temps except the greens who use it to try and gain control.

Yeah, you see, in scientific terms, this is what is known as "blah blah blah".

Originally Posted by RPETER65

cyclical climate discussion

There is no discussion to be had its not based in science in anyway. It is just some religious wacko making shit up.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

cyclical climate discussion

There is no discussion to be had its not based in science in anyway. It is just some religious wacko making shit up.

Are you really saying the climate of earth has not gone through climate cycles, seriously?

^ Not in the way your retard article claims. The article itself is so stupid that it took seconds to blow it out of the water.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

We know for a fact that prior to 1434 the Chinese took it as normal to sail over the Arctic into the Atlantic in summer up until 1250 and possibly up until 1434 when their navy visited Europe via Suez and the Nile-Suez Canal. They sailed to Italy and visited Florence under the De Medici. Many of their inventions and probable maps were used by the Europeans.

The Chinese sailed through a Suez canal that was not even built for almost another 450 years and visited I am assuming a pope that did not reign for almost another hundred years. With this kind of stupidity you want me to address the other nonsense contained in the article. Are you fucking serious?

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ Not in the way your retard article claims. The article itself is so stupid that it took seconds to blow it out of the water.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

We know for a fact that prior to 1434 the Chinese took it as normal to sail over the Arctic into the Atlantic in summer up until 1250 and possibly up until 1434 when their navy visited Europe via Suez and the Nile-Suez Canal. They sailed to Italy and visited Florence under the De Medici. Many of their inventions and probable maps were used by the Europeans.

The Chinese sailed through a Suez canal that was not even built for almost another 450 years and visited I am assuming a pope that did not reign for almost another hundred years. With this kind of stupidity you want me to address the other nonsense contained in the article. Are you fucking serious?

So put the article aside and tell me again how you don't believe the earths climate has gone through cyclical changes.

A futile waste of time but anyways...



If the Earth’s temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would be obvious.
But the temperature has not been steady at all. Twenty thousand years ago, the planet was going through an ice age, with glaciers covering much of Europe and North America. A hundred million years ago, the Earth was so warm that crocodile-like creatures prowled through tropical vegetation not far from the North Pole.


In other words, climate variations are not at all unusual. So how do we know this one is caused by humans?


Several reasons. First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide, or CO2. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily climbing as we burn more. Not only that — chemists can tell the difference between the CO2 released naturally by plants and animals and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of the CO2 now in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.


The one obvious natural suspect — the Sun — can pretty much be ruled out. It is an obvious suspect because astronomers know that the Sun can vary in brightness. When it does, the amount of heat it sends to the Earth varies too. It would not take much brightening to cause the increases in temperature we have seen. But satellites have been monitoring the Sun since the 1970s — when the fastest warming has been taking place — and the brightening just is not there.

There is plenty of other evidence — the pattern of warming, for example, which is greatest in the Arctic, and the pace, which is faster (as best we can tell) than prehistoric warming episodes. The upper atmosphere has actually cooled, because so much heat has been trapped below.


The bottom line is that nobody has come up with a natural explanation for the current warming episode that fits the observations. At the same time, the un-natural explanation—that our industrial civilization is a big part of the cause—fits the evidence.


That’s how we know it is not natural. One last thing. If the Earth has survived earlier warming episodes, what is so bad about this one even if it is not natural? The problem is that our civilization — where cities are located, where we grow food, where we get fresh water—is all based on the climate we have experienced for the last 10,000 years. So are many of the world’s ecosystems. If the climate changes, many of those things will suddenly find themselves in the wrong place.


How do we know?

Two NASA satellites, known as ACE and STEREO, measure the brightness of the Sun from Earth orbit, where the dimming effects of our atmosphere are minimal. Another satellite, called Aqua, looks down with an instrument called AIRS at the atmosphere from above to measure how much carbon dioxide is in it. And, as we discussed in the answer to the first question, we are measuring the Earth’s radiation budget from space.


How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate Central

Originally Posted by bsnub

A futile waste of time but anyways...



If the Earth’s temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would be obvious.
But the temperature has not been steady at all. Twenty thousand years ago, the planet was going through an ice age, with glaciers covering much of Europe and North America. A hundred million years ago, the Earth was so warm that crocodile-like creatures prowled through tropical vegetation not far from the North Pole.


In other words, climate variations are not at all unusual. So how do we know this one is caused by humans?


Several reasons. First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide, or CO2. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily climbing as we burn more. Not only that — chemists can tell the difference between the CO2 released naturally by plants and animals and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of the CO2 now in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.


The one obvious natural suspect — the Sun — can pretty much be ruled out. It is an obvious suspect because astronomers know that the Sun can vary in brightness. When it does, the amount of heat it sends to the Earth varies too. It would not take much brightening to cause the increases in temperature we have seen. But satellites have been monitoring the Sun since the 1970s — when the fastest warming has been taking place — and the brightening just is not there.

There is plenty of other evidence — the pattern of warming, for example, which is greatest in the Arctic, and the pace, which is faster (as best we can tell) than prehistoric warming episodes. The upper atmosphere has actually cooled, because so much heat has been trapped below.


The bottom line is that nobody has come up with a natural explanation for the current warming episode that fits the observations. At the same time, the un-natural explanation—that our industrial civilization is a big part of the cause—fits the evidence.


That’s how we know it is not natural. One last thing. If the Earth has survived earlier warming episodes, what is so bad about this one even if it is not natural? The problem is that our civilization — where cities are located, where we grow food, where we get fresh water—is all based on the climate we have experienced for the last 10,000 years. So are many of the world’s ecosystems. If the climate changes, many of those things will suddenly find themselves in the wrong place.


How do we know?

Two NASA satellites, known as ACE and STEREO, measure the brightness of the Sun from Earth orbit, where the dimming effects of our atmosphere are minimal. Another satellite, called Aqua, looks down with an instrument called AIRS at the atmosphere from above to measure how much carbon dioxide is in it. And, as we discussed in the answer to the first question, we are measuring the Earth’s radiation budget from space.


How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate Central

Interesting reading but that is not the question I asked. What I am getting at is the very high probability a combination of natural cycle and man made condition is the actual answer.
Still waiting on your answer to an earlier question, is temperature not a part of climate change?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

A futile waste of time but anyways...



If the Earth’s temperature had been steady for millions of years and only started rising in the past half century or so, the answer would be obvious.
But the temperature has not been steady at all. Twenty thousand years ago, the planet was going through an ice age, with glaciers covering much of Europe and North America. A hundred million years ago, the Earth was so warm that crocodile-like creatures prowled through tropical vegetation not far from the North Pole.


In other words, climate variations are not at all unusual. So how do we know this one is caused by humans?


Several reasons. First, we know that burning coal, oil, and gas releases heat-trapping carbon dioxide, or CO2. And we know, thanks to careful measurements that started in the late 1950s, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily climbing as we burn more. Not only that — chemists can tell the difference between the CO2 released naturally by plants and animals and the CO2 from burning fossil fuels. About a quarter of the CO2 now in the atmosphere is the result of human activity.


The one obvious natural suspect — the Sun — can pretty much be ruled out. It is an obvious suspect because astronomers know that the Sun can vary in brightness. When it does, the amount of heat it sends to the Earth varies too. It would not take much brightening to cause the increases in temperature we have seen. But satellites have been monitoring the Sun since the 1970s — when the fastest warming has been taking place — and the brightening just is not there.

There is plenty of other evidence — the pattern of warming, for example, which is greatest in the Arctic, and the pace, which is faster (as best we can tell) than prehistoric warming episodes. The upper atmosphere has actually cooled, because so much heat has been trapped below.


The bottom line is that nobody has come up with a natural explanation for the current warming episode that fits the observations. At the same time, the un-natural explanation—that our industrial civilization is a big part of the cause—fits the evidence.


That’s how we know it is not natural. One last thing. If the Earth has survived earlier warming episodes, what is so bad about this one even if it is not natural? The problem is that our civilization — where cities are located, where we grow food, where we get fresh water—is all based on the climate we have experienced for the last 10,000 years. So are many of the world’s ecosystems. If the climate changes, many of those things will suddenly find themselves in the wrong place.


How do we know?

Two NASA satellites, known as ACE and STEREO, measure the brightness of the Sun from Earth orbit, where the dimming effects of our atmosphere are minimal. Another satellite, called Aqua, looks down with an instrument called AIRS at the atmosphere from above to measure how much carbon dioxide is in it. And, as we discussed in the answer to the first question, we are measuring the Earth’s radiation budget from space.


How do we know global warming is not a natural cycle? | Climate Central

Interesting reading but that is not the question I asked.

It's exactly the appropriate response to the question you asked, you moron.

"So put the article aside and tell me again how you don't believe the earths climate has gone through cyclical changes".

Take your Alzheimers meds.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Today on the site that cannot be named [climatedepot.com] there is an article announcing indias plans to double coal production and become the number 2 producer/user of coal in the world. All this after gloriously signing the latest propaganda paper in paris. The article can be found on the right listed under 411.

Now how can this member of the paris accord do this?? Is the paris accord nothing but a farce except of course to the western nations of the world who will use it as a club against its own population as a key tactic in their GLOBALIZATION drive. Globalization for all those who don't know is a push to equalize wages for the poor all across the world. Of course this means a massive increase in poverty in the west all driven bye the socialist parties of Europe and America. Indias doubling of coal production gives the lie to the Green Paris Accords. Its all a lie a trick and to be used against the lower classes in the west while asia catches up.

I'm not against the rest of the world catching up economically, I'm just against the enforced impoverishment of the masses in the west bye the left wing socialists.

Oh and lets not all forget that the next conference on global warming has been announced. This year its an all expenses paid outing to Ecuador!! Yes, all the govt officials will get an all expenses paid air polluting flight/vacation to Ecuador just for attending a few meetings on blah blah blah. Oh and what about the pollution caused bye all this? Fuck you world. Gee and I thought the greens were supposed to be green? Its all about milking the populace for all their worth, free trips for the greens where their green footprint will explode with pollution but do they care? No not at all because its all a farce after all and at our expense once again. Skype, hasn't anyone heard of skype and being green? The green leadership aren't green at all, theyre watermelon green. Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks, its all so obvious.

Still "blah blah blah".

No science. Just bullshit.

Yes the whole global warming scam is bullshit and fraud science.

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Yes the whole global warming scam is bullshit and fraud science.

Done in an evil conspiracy of the whole US scientific community, the Europeans, the Japanese and the Chinese. Not to mention the scientists of many other countries. Wow.

^ it's not pop idol where votes count... and all those mentioned are riding the same gravy train ..

Back to the real world :

Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them

Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can't get their "dirty weather," as Al Gore calls it? Then they'll just have define down what a disaster is.

Eleven years ago, Gore swore that "the science is extremely clear now." Global warming was "magnifying" the "destructive power" of the "average hurricane," he said. Man's impact on the environment "makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger."


The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists' faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, "Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message." From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said "Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change." The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was "absolutely" right.


Strain though they might, they're not convincing anyone who isn't already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they're not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn't make landfall will in the future be catastrophic "hurricanes" or "extreme weather" events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.

Warming Alarmists Redefine What A Hurricane Is So We'll Have More Of Them | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD