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

'The Great Global Warming Swindle': Is Climate Change A Myth?

I think most plants are CO2 neutral. We all think about them taking CO2 in during the day, but at night they release it and take in oxygen. That's how photosynthesis works. Plants lock in CARBON, but on the carbon dioxide thing they are pretty much in the same place as us.
 
Trevp666 said:
I saw a graph of CO2 measurements in the atmosphere in ppm over the course of thousands of years, with data gathered from ice-cores and drilled earth samples.
It basically showed that we are at one of the lowest periods for atmospheric CO2 ever, with it being much, much higher in the past.
IIRC we are at about 400ppm currently when it was mostly over 1200ppm in the past.
I'd like to find that graph again.
Click to expand...
I posted a graph like that here yonks ago, but nobody commented on it.
 
1662318948290.png

Here's one. I think the narrative is shifting again. As it's becoming harder to equate/correlate global warming (or anything) directly to co2 levels, the narrative seems to be focussing more on 'co2' as the scare factor, without quantifying exactly what that means for us.

It's just the worst ever right?
 
Ahah - I think I found the graph I was referring to.
It is really rather detailed but shows that atmospheric CO2 levels and average surface temperatures were indeed much, much higher in the past, with only the oft-quoted 'pre-industrial' lowest figure being slightly lower than current numbers. It really very clearly shows how the 'cherry picking' of a small data set and restricting your period of observations to only a (relatively) short time period can produce your desired results.
Here is the link to the full page in 'big' size.
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/CO2climateRaeetal20211600px.jpg
And here is a reduced size copy of it.
1662368139795.png
 
Coal said:
View attachment 58581
Here's one. I think the narrative is shifting again. As it's becoming harder to equate/correlate global warming (or anything) directly to co2 levels, the narrative seems to be focussing more on 'co2' as the scare factor, without quantifying exactly what that means for us.

It's just the worst ever right?
Click to expand...
Two points

We may still be in (or just coming out of) the last ice age, in which case this interglacial may end and we go back to deep freeze. Or we fully emerge and it gets warmer anyway.

We have destroyed the planet's lungs. This is unquestionably a human action. Plants absorb CO2, retain carbon and shed oxygen. By deforestation (since prehistoric times, but since then, and especially over the last 200 years, at a rapidly increasing pace) we have removed the second largest stabilising influence on the planet's climate after the oceans.

Now the rain forests have gone we have no way of rebuilding them. Planted forests have a tiny fraction of the total plant life of a rainforest, and timber plantations are all but sterile. And the geologically low amount of CO2 in the air (where is it? Is it all still underground?) slows plant growth especially in marginal areas.

I don't 'believe' in AGW. (You shouldn't need to 'believe' in science anyway).

That doesn't mean I think we've been blameless. We are just being misdirected to avoid seeing the real problems, and therefore to stop us questioning the oligarchy.
 
Cochise said:
That doesn't mean I think we've been blameless. We are just being misdirected to avoid seeing the real problems, and therefore to stop us questioning the oligarchy.
Click to expand...
Yes, agree. I've maintained (for at least two decades) that if this is really a world ending crisis, why are commercial flights not grounded, car engine size limited by decree, nuclear power plants replacing fossil fuel plants, and so on. Why is there no 'leading by example' going on?

It can seem to the causal observer, that the only people paying for 'climate change measures' are those without very much to give.
 
Cochise said:
And the geologically low amount of CO2 in the air (where is it? Is it all still underground?)
Click to expand...
I'll treat this as a factual question, rather than a rhetorical one. There is plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere, so the only part of this equation we need to consider is the carbon itself. Over the last four billion years, carbon has been gradually removed from the atmosphere by sequestration. Carbon is buried in sediments as organic materials, and these are progressively converted by depth and pressure into kerogen, lignite, coal, oil, oilshale, methane clathrates and natural gas. So in answer to your question, yes, it is still underground. Some, but not all, of the buried carbon is returned to the atmosphere via volcanoes, which oxidise the buried carbon and create CO2. This removal will continue into the future as the Earth gets older, and eventually (about 500 million years from now) the carbon in the atmosphere will not be sufficient to support photosynthesis as we know it today.

However the rate of carbon retrieval has increased since the start of the industrial era, because we are digging up buried carbon and burning it. We have now returned the carbon dioxide level to the state it was in the Miocene, 8 million years ago (before the Ice Ages); a period when sea-levels were much higher. So the very least we can expect is relatively rapid sea-level rise. Because of the way our human societies are configured, sea-level rise will be disruptive.

I'm particularly concerned about the effect of this increase in carbon dioxide on the methane clathrates around the world; we might get away with a relatively insignificant effect, but it is also possible that methane releases cause a rapid change in climate that will create severe problems above and beyond sea-level rises.
 
eburacum said:
I'll treat this as a factual question, rather than a rhetorical one. There is plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere, so the only part of this equation we need to consider is the carbon itself. Over the last four billion years, carbon has been gradually removed from the atmosphere by sequestration. Carbon is buried in sediments as organic materials, and these are progressively converted by depth and pressure into kerogen, lignite, coal, oil, oilshale, methane clathrates and natural gas. So in answer to your question, yes, it is still underground. Some, but not all, of the buried carbon is returned to the atmosphere via volcanoes, which oxidise the buried carbon and create CO2. This removal will continue into the future as the Earth gets older, and eventually (about 500 million years from now) the carbon in the atmosphere will not be sufficient to support photosynthesis as we know it today.

However the rate of carbon retrieval has increased since the start of the industrial era, because we are digging up buried carbon and burning it. We have now returned the carbon dioxide level to the state it was in the Miocene, 8 million years ago (before the Ice Ages); a period when sea-levels were much higher. So the very least we can expect is relatively rapid sea-level rise. Because of the way our human societies are configured, sea-level rise will be disruptive.

I'm particularly concerned about the effect of this increase in carbon dioxide on the methane clathrates around the world; we might get away with a relatively insignificant effect, but it is also possible that methane releases cause a rapid change in climate that will create severe problems above and beyond sea-level rises.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I was too lazy to look it up - my bad.

Given (see graph above) it looks like we are still in the tail end of an ice age, would it not be the case that - assuming we are genuinely on the way back to 'normal' - i.e. the much longer periods of warm planet between ice ages - the sea level is bound to rise? I can't recall the source, but I'm sure I read that for most of the time there has been life on the planet, there have been no ice caps, and I can't imagine where else the water would go.

On the bright side, large tracts of northern Canada and Russia plus the Antarctic would become 'des res'. That'll sure upset the politicians, but maybe forcing us to adapt would in the long run be a good thing, as the climate should then be stable for several millions of years?
 
If there were no anthropogenic global warming, the current interglacial period would probably last for about 55 thousand years, then the ice would return. This is assuming that the ice cycle is governed primarily by the Milanković cycle, and not affected by solar irregularity or other cosmic effects. But even during such a long interglacial, the sea-level probably wouldn't rise more than a few metres above what we already have.

In the long term, the cycle of ice age and interglacial periods will probably last for tens of millions of years; gradually the Sun will get warmer, and raise the global temperature to Miocene levels once again. So all we are doing by adding fossil carbon to our atmosphere is anticipating the climate on Earth many millions of years from now. Some people may think this is acceptable, since it anticipates natural changes, but the danger comes from the relatively rapid increase in temperature. We may struggle to adapt, but the natural world will likely suffer much worse problems, since it is already stressed by human farming and urbanisation.

Because I'm a techno-optimist, I think humanity may survive (and even thrive) despite climate stress - but I am far from optimistic about the changes that will happen to the natural ecosphere.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before and it's worth repeating that all the talking heads that promote the climate change theories and tell us that the sea levels will be rising are the very same people that are buying up 'beach front' properties with the millions they are making from the credulous.

I remember being a small child on holiday on the Isle of Wight when I was about 8 years old and being told that the lovely beaches at Sandown and Shanklin would be gone within about 10-15 years due to erosion and sea level rises.
I'm 56 now and those beaches are still there.
1662383611899.png
 
Last edited:
Trevp666 said:
I've said it before and it's worth repeating that all the talking heads that promote the climate change theories and tell us that the sea levels will be rising are the very same people that are buying up 'beach front' properties with the millions they are making from the credulous.

I remember being a small child on holiday in the Isle of Wight when I was about 8 years old and being told that the lovely beaches at Sandown and Shanklin would be gone with about 10-15 years due to erosion and sea level rises.
I'm 56 now and those beaches are still there.
View attachment 58607
Click to expand...
And Southport Pier is now more than 50% over solid land, and even from the end the sea hardly ever comes in sight. The inner part of the pier was over dry land before WW1. But there are probably local explanations for that.

I don't doubt that the climate changes - it always has. What I do doubt is whether anything truly exceptional is happening (despite my comment about the rain forests) and whether we can do anything whatsoever to stop it.

It seems to me most humans simply can't understand cycles measured in 100s of thousands of years, and that we as a race suffer from enormous hubris imagining we control the planet. We don't, and eventually one way or another it will kill us, not the other way round.
 
Purfleet Quay next to the dock on the sea front at Kings Lynn.
I say 'sea front'. It used to be the sea front many decades ago, which is why there are no buildings on the land on the opposite bank of the River Great Ouse which used to discharge into the sea a little further south of here.
Slowly the mouth of the river became silted up more and more, preventing the fishing fleets from landing, so they dredged the river, depositing the dredged material to one side, which formed an area of dry land, and so on, along with the ongoing draining of the previously marshy fenlands.
The sea is now 4 miles north of here.
1662386660401.png

1662387007736.png
 
0
Trevp666 said:
I've said it before and it's worth repeating that all the talking heads that promote the climate change theories and tell us that the sea levels will be rising are the very same people that are buying up 'beach front' properties with the millions they are making from the credulous.

I remember being a small child on holiday in the Isle of Wight when I was about 8 years old and being told that the lovely beaches at Sandown and Shanklin would be gone with about 10-15 years due to erosion and sea level rises.
I'm 56 now and those beaches are still there.
View attachment 58607
Click to expand...

lf only the locals of hundreds of years ago had switched from petrol to electric cars, and had turned down their air conditioning, then villages like Shipden, Dunwich and Hickling would still be above water.

maximus otter
 
eburacum said:
I'm particularly concerned about the effect of this increase in carbon dioxide on the methane clathrates around the world; we might get away with a relatively insignificant effect, but it is also possible that methane releases cause a rapid change in climate that will create severe problems above and beyond sea-level rises.
Click to expand...
I agree that this is a serious issue. It may be far more serious than 'CO2' or 'the climate', all by itself.
 
Coal said:
View attachment 58581
Here's one. I think the narrative is shifting again. As it's becoming harder to equate/correlate global warming (or anything) directly to co2 levels, the narrative seems to be focussing more on 'co2' as the scare factor, without quantifying exactly what that means for us.

It's just the worst ever right?
Click to expand...
Wasn't the atmosphere of the dinosaurs - the oxygen levels and CO2 levels - considerably different from what we have now? And were there cooling periods/ice ages during dinosaur times, or did those only start later?
 
MrRING said:
Wasn't the atmosphere of the dinosaurs - the oxygen levels and CO2 levels - considerably different from what we have now? And were there cooling periods/ice ages during dinosaur times, or did those only start later?
Click to expand...

Information from the Natural History Museum indicates that;
During the Triassic period (252-201 mya) The climate was relatively hot and dry, and much of the land was covered with large deserts. Unlike today, there were no polar ice caps.
During the Jurassic Period (201 to 145 mya) Temperatures fell slightly, although it was still warmer than today due to higher amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rainfall increased as a result of the large seas appearing between the land masses.
During the Cretaceous Period (145 to 66 mya) Sea levels rose and fell repeatedly (...). At the highest point there were many shallow seas separating parts of the continents we know today.

And other interesting stuff.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/when-did-dinosaurs-live.html

Also my post above (with the graph through the following eras) shows the varying levels of CO2 that came later.
Trevp666 said:
the graph
Click to expand...
 
All explained by Bill Watterson in Calvin & Hobbes

Trevp666 said:
Information from the Natural History Museum indicates that;
During the Triassic period (252-201 mya) The climate was relatively hot and dry, and much of the land was covered with large deserts. Unlike today, there were no polar ice caps.
During the Jurassic Period (201 to 145 mya) Temperatures fell slightly, although it was still warmer than today due to higher amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Rainfall increased as a result of the large seas appearing between the land masses.
During the Cretaceous Period (145 to 66 mya) Sea levels rose and fell repeatedly (...). At the highest point there were many shallow seas separating parts of the continents we know today.

And other interesting stuff.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/when-did-dinosaurs-live.html

Also my post above (with the graph through the following eras) shows the varying levels of CO2 that came later.
Click to expand...
As explained by Bill Watterson in Calvin & Hobbes
 

Attachments

  • Calvin & Hobbes.jpg
    Calvin & Hobbes.jpg
    83.3 KB · Views: 24
MrRING said:
And were there cooling periods/ice ages during dinosaur times, or did those only start later?
Click to expand...
There were no ice ages during the age of the dinosaurs, aka the Mesozoic Era. After that time, ice ages only started being a thing during the late Pliocene, and really took off in the Quaternary, 2.58 million years ago. This coincided with the migration of Antarctica to the Polar region, and the closure of the Arctic Ocean. These continental movements have amplified the ease with which ice forms in these regions.

Earlier ice ages before the dinosaurs coincided with low CO2 levels, and if you go back far enough, the Sun was considerably less luminous in the Proterozoic and the Cryogenian periods. Indeed CO2 was the main factor keeping our planet habitable in those days, and even today we would be a much cooler planet on average if all the greenhouse gases were to disappear.
 
To be a bit more accurate, the ice age on Antarctica started several million years earlier, and that continent was fully covered in ice 14 million years ago. This is a hopeful sign, since the great majority of ice on our planet is locked up in the Antarctic ice cap, and this is unlikely to melt even if we reach Miocene-level temperatures.
 
Last edited:
Coal said:
View attachment 58581
Here's one. I think the narrative is shifting again. As it's becoming harder to equate/correlate global warming (or anything) directly to co2 levels, the narrative seems to be focussing more on 'co2' as the scare factor, without quantifying exactly what that means for us.

It's just the worst ever right?
Click to expand...
Do you have a link…?
 
This is an excellent article written by Chris Morrison in todays Daily Sceptic.

Climate Alarmists Report One Third of Pakistan Under Water – In Fact, it’s Eight Per Cent
There is something rather sad – desperate even – about the attempts by green zealots and journalists to blame the tragic monsoon floods in Pakistan on human-caused climate change. There is no scientific proof to back up this assertion, but to the alarmists it has a ‘ring of truth’ and can be conveniently fitted into the pre-ordained climate change and Net Zero political narrative.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/06...port-one-third-of-pakistan-under-water-try-8/
 
Trevp666 said:
This is an excellent article written by Chris Morrison in todays Daily Sceptic.

Climate Alarmists Report One Third of Pakistan Under Water – In Fact, it’s Eight Per Cent
There is something rather sad – desperate even – about the attempts by green zealots and journalists to blame the tragic monsoon floods in Pakistan on human-caused climate change. There is no scientific proof to back up this assertion, but to the alarmists it has a ‘ring of truth’ and can be conveniently fitted into the pre-ordained climate change and Net Zero political narrative.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/06...port-one-third-of-pakistan-under-water-try-8/
Click to expand...
In fairness. the one third claim came from Pakistan's own climate minister:

"Pakistan floods: One third of country is under water - minister"​

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62712301

Also, this is the second time in 15 years this has happened to this extent, with the last being in 2010.

What is being seen is 100 hundred year events are happening on 10 year time frames. The frequency and severity of these etreme climate events is increasing.
 
Ascalon said:
In fairness. the one third claim came from Pakistan's own climate minister:
Click to expand...
Yes it mentions this in the article and points out that he didn't know what he was talking about, and yet the BBC repeated it without checking the facts.
 
Ascalon said:
What is being seen is 100 hundred year events are happening on 10 year time frames.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Is it just another one of those 'stating something as fact' things, with no research to back it up?
If that is the case you might benefit from reading the David Sedgwick book "Is That True Or Did You Hear It On The BBC?: Disinformation and the BBC" https://www.amazon.co.uk/That-True-Did-You-Hear/dp/1999359178

Records actually show that "there have been four massive Pakistan floods – 1950, 1992, 1993 and 2010 – which killed more people than perished this year."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top