Global warming is in fact entirely natural and has already peaked

[ProDave]

Take a look at this well presented scientific presentation.  If you are short on time start at 5 minutes 30 seconds.

 

 

It shows there are a number of cycles that affect global temperatures all of different periods and when all the cycle peaks coincide we get a warm period and when all the cycle minimums coincide we get an ice age.

 

That data shows all the cycles have just peaked, we are presently at the maximum of a warm period and temperatures are set to decline from now on for 50 years or so.

 

I look forward to well presented arguments why this is not the case.

 

(gets tin hat on for incoming)

[MikeGrahamT21]

Will have a watch thanks. I personally can't make my mind up whether its happening or not, its certainly a good ploy to make some $$ if its not real. I do think we are looking at such a narrow amount of time though for our trends, hundreds of years, when in fact we should be looking at 10's if not 100's of thousands of years to spot the trend.

 

He seems to stop at 2000 in his data, at which time the trends look like this:

 

 

The actual and predicted trends are polar opposites

Edited April 25, 2023 by MikeGrahamT21

[JohnMo]

Interesting fact not discussed in the video is the temperature spike that is occurring on the natural occurring repeat in the 2000s.  The temperature is actually higher than any of the previously recorded spikes.

 

Not sure where he gets the reliable temperature data from circa 2000 years ago. When the thermometer was invented in 1620s, so 1600 years of guess work, I guess.

 

So shite in, shite out, would be my best guess. Making the something fit your argument 

[jack]

I hope he's right, but I doubt he is: https://skepticalscience.com/flaws_of_ludecke_and_weiss.html

[Iceverge]

If the world continues to warm we'll just have to move to Siberia and Northern Canada.

 

However if the CO2 keeps rising we're in trouble. It's double the average for the last 800,000 years. 

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

 

 

Soon we'll all be idiots. 

 

Quote :

In fact, at 1400 ppm, CO2 concentrations may cut our basic decision-making ability by 25 percent, and complex strategic thinking by around 50 percent, the authors found

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200421/Atmospheric-CO2-levels-can-cause-cognitive-impairment.aspx

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Iceverge

[MikeGrahamT21]

This is also interesting for a read: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

 

And this one does go back a long way

[Adsibob]

I really don't understand those who continue to think anthropogenic climate change isn't real, or that this is just a cycle that will correct itself soon. That is simply not the findings of decades of careful research by the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). The IPCC has nothing to gain from inventing climate change. There is no conspiracy. The panel is composed by top scientists from around the world. Here is a snapshot of the CV of one of the UK scientists who is currently the co-chair of one of the IPCC's working groups:

 

Jim Skea read Mathematical Physics at Edinburgh University, followed by a PhD in energy research at Cambridge University’s Cavendish Laboratory. In 1981, he moved to Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to work on emerging US energy and environment policy. Since then he has worked at the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University (1983-1998), where he moved through the ranks, becoming a Professorial Fellow in 1994. He was subsequently Director of the Policy Studies Institute (1998-2004).

He was awarded an OBE in 2004 and CBE in 2013 for his work on sustainable transport and sustainable energy respectively.

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Adsibob

[Dunc]

It is really important to have calm and reasoned debate, and it's gerat to hear a climate sceptic view presenten in such an un-Trumpian way.

 

But I think it's very easy to cherry pick publications and their content to suit ones own view.

 

Heres the conclusion from a similar oscillation study:

"Forecasting through projection of pre-industrial temperature oscillatory patterns beyond 1880 AD by applying spectral analysis to generate input to train ANNs show that current atmospheric temperatures can be largely explained on basis of continuation of natural oscillations. This is the case irrespective of whether the hockey stick or MWP_LIA cycles are operative. This process could give rise to temperatures higher that past 1000 years without major contribution from anthropogenic influences." [Ref:

doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20211003.14]

 

Which I interpret as saying that CO2 has little effect BUT the same oscillations referred to in the video WILL cause a further increase in temperature, not the decrease suggested in the video.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

Is this 'scientific' presentation just this reworked again, again, again...

 

Global Warming Hiatus 

 

 

Anyone here the news about sea temperatures this morning?

 

Also, shall mention that temperature and energy are not the same thing.

The Earth's Energy Budget is currently positive i.e. more energy coming in than going out.

 

[ProDave]

18 minutes ago, MikeGrahamT21 said:

This is also interesting for a read: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

 

And this one does go back a long way

From that:

 

"The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different."

 

So we didn't get a thermal runaway last time CO2 levels were way higher because in the intervening time the sun has got hotter and the planets orbital cycle was different.

 

Yet we continue to blame the plants problems on mans activity, not the fact the sun has got hotter and the planets orbit has changed.

 

If that is not selective use of data to probe the MMGW point I don't know what is.

[Kelvin]

Regardless of what you choose to believe consider what if our activity really is having an impact why wouldn’t we err on the side of caution and take reasonable steps to reduce the impact. Cutting consumption and waste and being more sustainable in all areas of life just seems to make sense to me. Ultimately it matters not as if climate change wipes us out the Earth will likely recover despite us and would be better off without us. 

[SteamyTea]

6 minutes ago, ProDave said:

sun has got hotter

Not really the surface temperature of the heat source, or the overall power.

It is to do with the frequency of the photons emitted.

There term 'hotter' or cooler is used to hoodwink the uneducated.

 

[Iceverge]

Long term, I wonder if we should  proactively engage in some kind of climate management to keep the planet habitable, prevent ice ages etc. 

 

I wonder how this could be done, cloud generators,  orbital dust clouds in space to shade the sun for cooling, maybe a provoke an eruption of a few volcanoes to block out the sun. 

 

For heating maybe maximising the water vapour in the atmosphere with huge hydro products with the aim of atomising water as a greenhouse gas. Maybe bio engineering some black fungus to colonise the ice caps and prevent so much sunlight being reflected back to space.  

 

 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Iceverge

[ProDave]

Just to be clear, I do think we should be reducing use of fossil fuels and moving to truly green renewable energy.  I just don't think the present panic mode adoption is quite the way to do it.  Policies implemented in haste in panic are rarely the best policies.

 

I would like to see the panic taken out of the present approach and move in a steady and well planned way towards reducing fossil fuel usage.  The dash to outlaw FF cars and FF home heating is the low hanging easy fruit, but they are trying to make it happen faster than the grid infrastructure can be upgraded and faster than we can build the renewable generation so a lot of what people think is "green" when they drive their new EV's and turn on their new ASHP's will still be coming from fossil fuels.  People are being hoodwinked.  And the switch to electric heating for older houses is probably going to be ignoring the real issue, the abysmal lack of insulation and air tightness.

[Kelvin]

I disagree. Humans, historically, and naturally tend to do little or not enough until we absolutely have to. Then we throw everything at it and quite often solve it. Hence the phrase necessity being the mother of invention. That’s not so easy with climate change. Also these very edge based targets are set full in the knowledge we won’t hit them but will do better than we otherwise would have done had the target been lower. 
 

China is apparently building more wind turbines that the rest of the World combined. A lot of that is driven by their polluted smog ridden factory cities. 
 

 

[Kelvin]

11 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

Long term, I wonder if we should  proactively engage in some kind of climate management to keep the planet habitable, prevent ice ages etc. 

 

I wonder how this could be done, cloud generators,  orbital dust clouds in space to shade the sun for cooling, maybe a provoke an eruption of a few volcanoes to block out the sun. 

 

For heating maybe maximising the water vapour in the atmosphere with huge hydro products with the aim of atomising water as a greenhouse gas. Maybe bio engineering some black fungus to colonise the ice caps and prevent so much sunlight being reflected back to space.  

 

 

All likely disasters waiting to happen with unknown consequences. 

[MikeGrahamT21]

11 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

Long term, I wonder if we should  proactively engage in some kind of climate management to keep the planet habitable, prevent ice ages etc. 

 

I wonder how this could be done, cloud generators,  orbital dust clouds in space to shade the sun for cooling, maybe a provoke an eruption of a few volcanoes to block out the sun. 

 

For heating maybe maximising the water vapour in the atmosphere with huge hydro products with the aim of atomising water as a greenhouse gas. Maybe bio engineering some black fungus to colonise the ice caps and prevent so much sunlight being reflected back to space.  

 

 

 

I'd be very against anything like that. There is so much we have left to learn about our planet, and we have a bit of a track record when it comes to recommending something, to which later is pulled because its dangerous or has the opposite effect!

[SteamyTea]

9 minutes ago, Iceverge said:

Long term, I wonder if we should  proactively engage in some kind of climate management to keep the planet habitable,

Nice idea.

How would all the countries of the world agree that tariff free trade on food production needs to happen, and in an unhampered manner.

The UK can't even agree on that with Northern Ireland.

 

11 minutes ago, ProDave said:

faster than we can build the renewable

So 43% of our electricity, in 2020 was from low carbon sources.

Installed capacity is up about 3.5 times between 2011 and 2018, generation over 4 times in the same period.

The physical infrastructure, or price, is not the problem. We did not have a European war in 2018, and in fact we had historically low energy prices.

 

I really don't understand the general public's dislike of renewable generation. They seem to dislike, but accept, the current high prices, but don't want to change anything.

[SteamyTea]

16 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

China is apparently building more wind turbines that the rest of the World combined. A lot of that is driven by their polluted smog ridden factory cities. 

And they do not want to be reliant on other countries energy sources.

Japan has always had to import the vast majority of their energy, what are the current costs of domestic energy there?

[Kelvin]

The anti renewables groups tend to be right wing so it’s become very political over the last ten years or so. Especially in the US. 

[Mike]

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

Take a look at this well presented scientific presentation.

It's climate denialism presented by the Environment Spokesman of the former* minor far-right political party For Britain.

 

*According to the Wikipedia page the party has disbanded, though their website is still up.

[SteamyTea]

48 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

The anti renewables groups tend to be right wing so it’s become very political over the last ten years or so. Especially in the US. 

Which, in itself, is (expletive deleted)ing odd.

How can a fundamental particle, the electron, become a political football.

About time most people realised that the electrons jiggling in wires care nothing for peoples political views.

 

[Kelvin]

Yeah I don’t understand it either. It seems to be on a continuum that ends up at chem trails and flat earth. 

[Temp]

My understanding is that there are both positive feedback (runaway) and negative feedback mechanisims (stability). These have caused and stopped swings within a range that has kept the Earth broadly habitable. The problem appears to be that rapid increases in CO2 can over power the negative feedback mechanisms leading to wider swings.

 

 

2 hours ago, ProDave said:

From that:

 

"The most distant period in time for which we have estimated CO2 levels is around the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago. At the time, atmospheric CO2 concentration was at a whopping 3000 to 9000 ppm! The average temperature wasn’t much more than 10 degrees C above today’s, and those of you who have heard of the runaway hothouse Earth scenario may wonder why it didn’t happen then. Major factors were that the Sun was cooler, and the planet’s orbital cycles were different."

 

So we didn't get a thermal runaway last time CO2 levels were way higher because in the intervening time the sun has got hotter and the planets orbital cycle was different.

 

No not because it got hotter. We didn't get runaway then because the sun wasnt quite as bright and CO2 didn't increase rapidly. The feedback mechsnisims were able to keep up and eventually prevent much higher temperatures. 

 

I think of it a bit like inflation. We can cope with 17% price rises over 10 years without the economy suffering. But 17% over a year is a much greater problem. 

[Dunc]

59 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

...How can a fundamental particle, the electron, become a political football...

 

Well if it can be both a particle and a wave, surely it can also be a football, no? 😁