• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

RaM said:
Living things produce methane, it's levels rise till it triggers a ice age,
this kills a lot of living things the level drops and we go back into
warming again, a cycle works for me.
:sstorm:
Click to expand...
Milankovitch cycles are now a well-established idea. There really isn't very much we can do to change them, without further endangering life on the planet. As humans, as a species, we've got to take it on the chin, so to speak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
I am convinced that the acceptance of at least some ideas as a lot to do
with humans need to believe they can control everything when in fact
nature will always snatch it back.
:omr:
 
Intense warm weather in Japan, South Korea, and southern Australia.

Japan never had a temperature of 39.5 C or 103.1 F until now.

Japan’s hospitals full of people with heat sickness.
 
Mythopoeika said:
New research indicates that we may be getting closer to another ice age.
It will get warmer before things turn around and things start to get cooler.
It's the natural methane and not the actions of humans, apparently.
That wonderful person Anton Petrov explains all:
Click to expand...
I watched the video and he seems to present the opposite, that the methane is an indicator of the current period ending suddenly, with it rapidly warming in the next few decades.
 
kamalktk said:
I watched the video and he seems to present the opposite, that the methane is an indicator of the current period ending suddenly, with it rapidly warming in the next few decades.
Click to expand...
...after which point, it will get very cold...
 
Mythopoeika said:
It's the natural methane and not the actions of humans, apparently.
Click to expand...
Petrov does say that human activity probably started the rise in methane. Hopefully it won't last long, although the danger is that lots more methane clathrates could melt in the permafrost regions of the world, causing even more methane release.

Mythopoeika said:
...after which point, it will get very cold...
Click to expand...
I'm afraid there is not much prospect of that. The Milankovitch cycles are likely to keep our planet out of glaciation for 50-70 thousand years, (as Petrov also said in the video).
 
Now I'll have to re-watch that video. Hmmm.
 
eburacum said:
Petrov does say that human activity probably started the rise in methane.
Click to expand...
His first words were '...this is going to be a kind of a climate change video with a bit of a twist - it's not the humans'.
 
I've now read numerous times and seen on a few videos about how there is a lag between warming temperatures and and increasing CO2 levels of about 800 years according to ice core samples and it's well known within that industry but not talked about or mentioned publicly. Rising CO2 levels follow warming temperatures and not the other way round.
 
kesavaross said:
I've now read numerous times and seen on a few videos about how there is a lag between warming temperatures and and increasing CO2 levels of about 800 years according to ice core samples and it's well known within that industry but not talked about or mentioned publicly. Rising CO2 levels follow warming temperatures and not the other way round.
Click to expand...
You need to post the links where you’ve got this from. Not too much to ask is it?..
 
hunck said:
You need to post the links where you’ve got this from. Not too much to ask is it?..
Click to expand...
Apologies. If I logged every video, paper, article, etc, I read or watch it would soon become impossible to keep track of it all as 99% plus of which would never be needed to be posted as a link anyway.

How about doing your own research?

Also I apologise again for this if it seems rude, there's no need to add the 'Not to much to ask is it'. The question is fine with out adding that and I would have answered it regardless without the barb at the end. Please always be polite. Good manners and politeness matter even on a forum and even if you disagree.
 
Last edited:
kesavaross said:
Has anyone on here ever considered it possible that the weather is controlled?
Click to expand...
I remember hearing years ago about the possibility of, for example, 'seeding clouds' to prompt rainfall.
Don't know if that ever actually came about, but it would certainly be helpful if scientists could figure out how to diffuse hurricanes, tornadoes, and the like.
 
Just google weather modification, lots of people messing
with it, doubt if anyone knows what the natural weather
is realy like.
 
There's been lots of attempts to modify and control the weather, sure, the most widely publicised effort being cloud seeding.
Actual successful results, though are hard to come by.
As pointed out in the latest FT, the US government got serious about it in the Vietnam war. Didn't get the expected results.
Go back to watching Kate Bush and Donald Sutherland in the video for Cloudbusting.
 
Kurt Vonnegut’s brother, Bernard, was a leading scientist in the quest for weather control via cloud seeding. According to Kurt the US government were particularly interested in weaponising weather control, but Bernard Vonnegut knew that
a/ cloud seeding was not useful as a weapon and
b/ there was no way he personally would want to be involved in weather control as a method of warfare.

Weather control is far too difficult and stochastic to be useful in conflict.
 
Last edited:
kesavaross said:
I've now read numerous times and seen on a few videos about how there is a lag between warming temperatures and and increasing CO2 levels of about 800 years according to ice core samples and it's well known within that industry but not talked about or mentioned publicly
Click to expand...
Note that environmental science is not an 'industry', but a field of scientific enquiry. Is different thing.
The fossil fuel industry is an industry, with a vested interest in obscuring the facts.

However it does appear that a rise in atmospheric CO2 does tend to lag slightly behind the end of glaciation events; therefore we can state that the termination of glaciation events in the past have not been caused by a rise in atmospheric CO2. Termination of glaciation events are triggered by other effects, most significantly orbital eccentricity, obliquity and precession.

However, once the glaciation termination process is underway, the (lagging) CO2 rise does accelerate the termination process. Atmospheric CO2 rise is almost synchronous with global temperature rise, so cannot be ignored.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S104061821731515X

Parrenin et al. (2012, 2013) revised the timescale of aCO2 derived from the Dome Concordia ice core, and showed that the variations of aCO2 and SAT were almost synchronous throughout the last deglaciation within an uncertainty less than 200 years. Similarly, the recently published centennial-scale aCO2 record derived from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Divide ice core (WDC) (Marcott et al., 2014) exhibits a nearly synchronous variation with SAT.
Click to expand...

Since no termination-of-glaciation event in the past has yet been accompanied by any anthropogenic CO2 rise (because human industry did not yet exist in those days), the atmospheric CO2 lag (if any) is irrelevant to anthropogenic global warming.
 
Mythopoeika said:
His first words were '...this is going to be a kind of a climate change video with a bit of a twist - it's not the humans'.
Click to expand...
Well, we can't affect the Milankovich cycles, but I suspect we can and do have profound effects on methane levels. Luckily, methane doesn't have a very long residence time in the atmosphere.
 
kesavaross said:
Apologies. If I logged every video, paper, article, etc, I read or watch it would soon become impossible to keep track of it all as 99% plus of which would never be needed to be posted as a link anyway.

How about doing your own research?

Also I apologise again for this if it seems rude, there's no need to add the 'Not to much to ask is it'. The question is fine with out adding that and I would have answered it regardless without the barb at the end. Please always be polite. Good manners and politeness matter even on a forum and even if you disagree.
Click to expand...
I’m not asking you for every video, paper, article you’ve ever seen, just something to back up what you’ve posted.

I don’t think I’ve been rude. I’m just asking for your sources, which you seem unwilling to share.
 
eburacum said:
Note that environmental science is not an 'industry', but a field of scientific enquiry. Is different thing.
Click to expand...

​

UK’s green economy nearly four times larger than manufacturing sector, says report​


https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-larger-than-manufacturing-sector-says-report

UK's first green gilt draws record $137 billion demand​


https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-first-green-gilt-headed-record-123-billion-demand-2021-09-21/

According to Forbes magazine, there are now 34 so-called ‘green billionaires worldwide, and 19 new people have joined their ranks in the last year alone. They are defined as those who have made their wealth by providing solutions to climate change, or other environmental issues.

https://privatebank.barclays.com/id...naires-can-purposeful-wealth-save-the-planet/

Etc.

“Green” is not some poor, tiny David facing a lavishly-funded Goliath; Green is worth hundreds of billions of pounds.

maximus otter
 
Yes, the Green economy is very large, and some people are making a lot of money from it.

Note, however, that the return on investment is much smaller from green power generation methods than from fossil fuels; the EROEI of green power is minute compared to oil and coal. So you don't tend to get green robber barons like you used to get oil and coal barons, and no Rockefellers and Gettys.

Except...
Some people have found ways to squeeze money out of well-meaning green investors. The good people of Thurrock have lost about half a billion pounds.
The Millionaire who cheated a council
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001p965/panorama-the-millionaire-who-cheated-a-council?page=1
 
Very interesting case. However, even if cause and effect were linked (entirely possible) it demonstrates a lack of weather control. It's examining how to do it, true, but such an outcome couldn't have been intended when they might've found alternative sites. And if the experiment was dependent on that partcular geographical situation, with that particular weather conditions, then it needs a lot of work before it's turned into a targetable weapon.
 
Interesting video about why CO2 isn't going to kill us anytime soon:
 
So, it's not a quick danger.
That's all right then. I'll be dead before any crap hits the fan.
 
Stormkhan said:
Very interesting case. However, even if cause and effect were linked (entirely possible) it demonstrates a lack of weather control. It's examining how to do it, true, but such an outcome couldn't have been intended when they might've found alternative sites. And if the experiment was dependent on that partcular geographical situation, with that particular weather conditions, then it needs a lot of work before it's turned into a targetable weapon.
Click to expand...
This is pure speculation on my part. It may not demonstrate a lack of weather control. If an army is bogged down in torrential rain and floods, it won't be as effective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaM
The Mayor of Moscow sade a few years ago it was cheaper to pay the military
to change the weather than to move the snow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top