20 Reasons To Be Skeptical Of Human-Induced Global Warming

James___ wrote:

...This graph https://goo.gl/images/9J9Ti3 is over the last 400,000+ years and about all ice core research seems to agree with this. There are naturally warming cycles even on a hundreds of years scale, the Little Ice Age is one example. With me, I do think we are helping to warm the northern hemisphere.
..What people have trouble discussing is why is it warming ? If we don't know that then we can't know how much we're influencing it.
...The 6 countries listed https://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2017/07/91-per-cent-of-global-electricity-used-by-just-20-countries.html consume about 60% of the world's energy and this doesn't even include the European Union. And energy when used is converted into heat.
...Still, most people who say we aren't affecting warming any probably don't care about the environment either. We are in the 21st Century yet all we seem to be able to say is we love watching videos online, etc. but to give some thought to the environment just can't be accepted.

Gamul1 wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Yes, can i add that the nuts he is spreading is of his own invention.

There are lots of Skeptics of the dangers of AGW, I among them, there are some nuts who are simply mad deniers of science creationist trolls. ITN is the latter. Same as there are a few (more than the denier nuts) ecco nuts who base their entire thinking on some sort of religious Gaia thing.

Add me to the skeptic of AGW. If you saw the paper I posted a month or two ago I think I made my stand pretty clear that nature does just fine on her own with climate extremes and that the current period of relatively nice climate is only a small percentage of the time. We are usually either much much colder, or much much hotter.

Its not that I dont think humans CANT be influencing climate. But I dont think we have proven anything at all. And I despise how the talk solely revolves around climate change as if it has ALWAYS been this temperature and should ALWAYS be this temperature - naturally.

I think I could take the AGW discussion more seriously if there was some acknowledgement of the reality of history and how it may be playing a role today.

Gamul1 wrote:


My point - its hard to make a case for AGW when we are still well within the norms of earths high temperatures. Time may prove there is AGW but I dont think we're there yet.

James___ wrote:

..And yet you ignore that energy is heat. And trillions of terrawatts can have an impact on AGW. It's an easy case to make. Yet when you say millions of years all you are trying to do is to obfuscate any research that deals in better detail recent cycling of climate change.
..You probably don't know that the current climate change that we are experiencing is primarily in the northern hemisphere. And I'm not sure why you're even interested in climate change when all you say is that we're still "technically" in an ice age and that we have to look at millions of years. That kind of makes any discussion pointless because we'll need to wait another million years or so to have any data to either agree or disagree with what you post. It pretty much ignores any of the science that would help us to understand why there are inter-glacial periods. Your "argument" basically ignores that.

James___ wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:


My point - its hard to make a case for AGW when we are still well within the norms of earths high temperatures. Time may prove there is AGW but I dont think we're there yet.

..And yet you ignore that energy is heat. And trillions of terrawatts can have an impact on AGW. It's an easy case to make. Yet when you say millions of years all you are trying to do is to obfuscate any research that deals in better detail recent cycling of climate change.
..You probably don't know that the current climate change that we are experiencing is primarily in the northern hemisphere. And I'm not sure why you're even interested in climate change when all you say is that we're still "technically" in an ice age and that we have to look at millions of years. That kind of makes any discussion pointless because we'll need to wait another million years or so to have any data to either agree or disagree with what you post. It pretty much ignores any of the science that would help us to understand why there are inter-glacial periods. Your "argument" basically ignores that.

..2 things that can be considered; discusses cooling in the north Atlantic;
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/070.htm

..shows the northern hemisphere warming faster than the southern hemisphere. The Earth's orbit around the Sun can be responsible for most warming but an increase in the north could be caused by deep faults in the sea floor and the amount of energy used in the northern hemisphere. A compound problem.
.And Gamul1, notice that I am only mentioning co2 to say I left it out. This is because scientists have yet to show how many Btu's it takes to warm and then cool 1,000 ft^3 of air with different levels of co2. That would show definitively how CO2 affects our atmosphere's ability to absorb and retain heat. The main focus would be on cooling I would think because that would show that increased levels of CO2 would cause our atmosphere to store more heat than it otherwise would.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/in-global-warming-northern-hemisphere-is-outpacing-the-south-15850

Gamul1 wrote:

James___ wrote:

..And yet you ignore that energy is heat. And trillions of terrawatts can have an impact on AGW. It's an easy case to make. Yet when you say millions of years all you are trying to do is to obfuscate any research that deals in better detail recent cycling of climate change.
..You probably don't know that the current climate change that we are experiencing is primarily in the northern hemisphere. And I'm not sure why you're even interested in climate change when all you say is that we're still "technically" in an ice age and that we have to look at millions of years. That kind of makes any discussion pointless because we'll need to wait another million years or so to have any data to either agree or disagree with what you post. It pretty much ignores any of the science that would help us to understand why there are inter-glacial periods. Your "argument" basically ignores that.

Science is not fact until it becomes history. Until there is scientific proof it is scientific theory. Right now - AGW is scientific theory.

Like I said - the whole AGW discussion would be more meaningful if the 99% of people that speak with authority (but are not more than arm chair scientists) would broaden the discussion to *include* the history and show they can put it in perspective. However - the arm chair scientists speak as if the past 12,000 years of temperature data is the Earth norm and any departure from that is abnormal. It is not. Therefore - that is why it is hard for me to take AGW alarmists seriously.

So, do I believe the climate is changing? I do believe it is. Do I believe humans have contributed? Probably, although I dont think that is proven yet. Do I think they are solely to blame? No, I don't, although I do leave open that possibility too, especially if the planet warms closer to its typical non ice age normals as that would break the pattern of length of typical ice ages.

Again - my main point *here* is simply that if you're not considering the history of climate out millions of years, then you have limited your knowledge too narrowly to form any factual opinion.

spot wrote:
I feel like I'm in a flat earth forum, getting abuse for saying the earth is round and then ITN comes along aggressively convinced it's a mobius loop.

spot wrote:
I feel like I'm in a flat earth forum, getting abuse for saying the earth is round and then ITN comes along aggressively convinced it's a mobius loop.

Tim the plumber wrote:

spot wrote:
I feel like I'm in a flat earth forum, getting abuse for saying the earth is round and then ITN comes along aggressively convinced it's a mobius loop.

Ignore ITN.

I do.

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I feel like I'm in a flat earth forum, getting abuse for saying the earth is round and then ITN comes along aggressively convinced it's a mobius loop.

The only way you can throw an insult is to lie. I never argued that the Earth was either flat or a mobius loop.

Gamul1 wrote:

James___ wrote:

..And yet you ignore that energy is heat. And trillions of terrawatts can have an impact on AGW. It's an easy case to make. Yet when you say millions of years all you are trying to do is to obfuscate any research that deals in better detail recent cycling of climate change.
..You probably don't know that the current climate change that we are experiencing is primarily in the northern hemisphere. And I'm not sure why you're even interested in climate change when all you say is that we're still "technically" in an ice age and that we have to look at millions of years. That kind of makes any discussion pointless because we'll need to wait another million years or so to have any data to either agree or disagree with what you post. It pretty much ignores any of the science that would help us to understand why there are inter-glacial periods. Your "argument" basically ignores that.

Science is not fact until it becomes history. Until there is scientific proof it is scientific theory. Right now - AGW is scientific theory.

Like I said - the whole AGW discussion would be more meaningful if the 99% of people that speak with authority (but are not more than arm chair scientists) would broaden the discussion to *include* the history and show they can put it in perspective. However - the arm chair scientists speak as if the past 12,000 years of temperature data is the Earth norm and any departure from that is abnormal. It is not. Therefore - that is why it is hard for me to take AGW alarmists seriously.

So, do I believe the climate is changing? I do believe it is. Do I believe humans have contributed? Probably, although I dont think that is proven yet. Do I think they are solely to blame? No, I don't, although I do leave open that possibility too, especially if the planet warms closer to its typical non ice age normals as that would break the pattern of length of typical ice ages.

Again - my main point *here* is simply that if you're not considering the history of climate out millions of years, then you have limited your knowledge too narrowly to form any factual opinion.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

spot wrote:
I feel like I'm in a flat earth forum, getting abuse for saying the earth is round and then ITN comes along aggressively convinced it's a mobius loop.

The only way you can throw an insult is to lie. I never argued that the Earth was either flat or a mobius loop.

I was making an analogy you daft prat.

James___ wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

James___ wrote:

..And yet you ignore that energy is heat. And trillions of terrawatts can have an impact on AGW. It's an easy case to make. Yet when you say millions of years all you are trying to do is to obfuscate any research that deals in better detail recent cycling of climate change.
..You probably don't know that the current climate change that we are experiencing is primarily in the northern hemisphere. And I'm not sure why you're even interested in climate change when all you say is that we're still "technically" in an ice age and that we have to look at millions of years. That kind of makes any discussion pointless because we'll need to wait another million years or so to have any data to either agree or disagree with what you post. It pretty much ignores any of the science that would help us to understand why there are inter-glacial periods. Your "argument" basically ignores that.

Science is not fact until it becomes history. Until there is scientific proof it is scientific theory. Right now - AGW is scientific theory.

Like I said - the whole AGW discussion would be more meaningful if the 99% of people that speak with authority (but are not more than arm chair scientists) would broaden the discussion to *include* the history and show they can put it in perspective. However - the arm chair scientists speak as if the past 12,000 years of temperature data is the Earth norm and any departure from that is abnormal. It is not. Therefore - that is why it is hard for me to take AGW alarmists seriously.

So, do I believe the climate is changing? I do believe it is. Do I believe humans have contributed? Probably, although I dont think that is proven yet. Do I think they are solely to blame? No, I don't, although I do leave open that possibility too, especially if the planet warms closer to its typical non ice age normals as that would break the pattern of length of typical ice ages.

Again - my main point *here* is simply that if you're not considering the history of climate out millions of years, then you have limited your knowledge too narrowly to form any factual opinion.

...It's people like you Gamul1 who make me feel better about my perspective.
When you say the last few million years you're ignoring continental drift and how that affects the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Until you show how continental drift affects climate change you're just trying to dismiss more detailed research where our continents have had little movement.

A Changing Climate

At the start of the Quaternary, the continents were just about where they are today, slowing inching here and there as the forces of plate tectonics push and tug them about. But throughout the period, the planet has wobbled on its path around the sun. The slight shifts cause ice ages to come and go. By 800,000 years ago, a cyclical pattern had emerged: Ice ages last about 100,000 years followed by warmer interglacials of 10,000 to 15,000 years each. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/quaternary/

James___ wrote:
..If we consider that

..F1 = F2 = G (M1 x M2)/r^2 then to include the Sun we could say

..G (M1 x M2)/r^2 x S1/r^2

..That or something like it should show the Earth's and the Moon's gravity relative to that of the Sun. And when the Earth's spin slows the Moon's accelerates. This would increase the linear momentum of the Earth and the Moon in their orbits around the Sun. This would influence the mean orbit and would affect the solar constant.
..This is where glaciers or a lack there of in the Arctic would change the Earth's linear and angular momentum.

A Changing Climate

At the start of the Quaternary, the continents were just about where they are today, slowing inching here and there as the forces of plate tectonics push and tug them about. But throughout the period, the planet has wobbled on its path around the sun. The slight shifts cause ice ages to come and go. By 800,000 years ago, a cyclical pattern had emerged: Ice ages last about 100,000 years followed by warmer interglacials of 10,000 to 15,000 years each. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/quaternary/

James___ wrote:
...It's people like you Gamul1 who make me feel better about my perspective.
When you say the last few million years you're ignoring continental drift and how that affects the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Until you show how continental drift affects climate change you're just trying to dismiss more detailed research where our continents have had little movement.

James___ wrote:
..And when the Earth and Moon start to have an elliptical orbit then gravity assist can increase it's ellipse because of gravity assist from the Sun. Considering the mass of the Earth and what little resistance there is in space could explain why it could take a hundred thousand year for a single glacial cycle. It might not be that great of a shift in the Earth's moment of inertia.

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

Gamul1 wrote:

James___ wrote:
...It's people like you Gamul1 who make me feel better about my perspective.
When you say the last few million years you're ignoring continental drift and how that affects the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Until you show how continental drift affects climate change you're just trying to dismiss more detailed research where our continents have had little movement.

Why do people who dont understand something always resort to personal attacks to make themselves feel smarter? I've never understood that because it only amplifies their ignorance.

I did not say the last "few" million years - I said the last 600 million years at a minimum - and 4.5 billion for a full perspective. We've been in the "current" ice age for the last "few" million years only (2.588 million). But if you limit your understanding of climate and Earth's high temperatures to only the last "few" million years then of course any arm chair scientist will come away with the foolish idea that our current temps might be approaching Earths all time high. That would be so naive and short sighted. It is only through the lens of hundreds of millions of years and more that you can begin to comprehend climate history to put in perspective today's climate signals.

Does continental drift impact climate? Absolutely. Does it drive the cycle of ice ages and non ice ages? Not that I have ever seen any relevant scientist connect - not even remotely. You might be onto something profound here. But why do *I* have to show how continental drift impacts climate? You're the one that brought it into the discussion in the first place.

Into the Night wrote:

James___ wrote:
..And when the Earth and Moon start to have an elliptical orbit then gravity assist can increase it's ellipse because of gravity assist from the Sun. Considering the mass of the Earth and what little resistance there is in space could explain why it could take a hundred thousand year for a single glacial cycle. It might not be that great of a shift in the Earth's moment of inertia.

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

Elliptical orbits do not produce gravity assist. See Kepler's laws.

James___ wrote:

Gamul1 wrote:

James___ wrote:
...It's people like you Gamul1 who make me feel better about my perspective.
When you say the last few million years you're ignoring continental drift and how that affects the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Until you show how continental drift affects climate change you're just trying to dismiss more detailed research where our continents have had little movement.

Why do people who dont understand something always resort to personal attacks to make themselves feel smarter? I've never understood that because it only amplifies their ignorance.

I did not say the last "few" million years - I said the last 600 million years at a minimum - and 4.5 billion for a full perspective. We've been in the "current" ice age for the last "few" million years only (2.588 million). But if you limit your understanding of climate and Earth's high temperatures to only the last "few" million years then of course any arm chair scientist will come away with the foolish idea that our current temps might be approaching Earths all time high. That would be so naive and short sighted. It is only through the lens of hundreds of millions of years and more that you can begin to comprehend climate history to put in perspective today's climate signals.

Does continental drift impact climate? Absolutely. Does it drive the cycle of ice ages and non ice ages? Not that I have ever seen any relevant scientist connect - not even remotely. You might be onto something profound here. But why do *I* have to show how continental drift impacts climate? You're the one that brought it into the discussion in the first place.

...I didn't bring continental drift into ice age and non ice ages. That's in your last paragraph. The Art of War. Act like your complimenting on something that I didn't say, you're just acting like I did so people will think I did.
..What I said was the angular momentum of the Earth changes and it's that change which is probably what triggers global cooling.
..I did say that with about 11.5 terrawatts of energy consumed in the northern hemisphere, that's about 0.05 w/m^2. The Arctic starts at about 60.6° north latitude. If we considered the area at 70 or 80 degrees north latitude then that 0.05 w/m^2 increases quite a bit. This is because the heat north of the equator flows into the Arctic because hot flows to cold. So if you ask me, I do feel good about my perspective.
..And what you're missing is I am wondering how much quicker we can start heading towards the next ice age, might be kind of nice to know. If you consider when ice ages had 40,000 year cycles about 1 million years ago our planet got hotter than it is now. But you miss this when you say 100's of millions or even billions of years.

James___ wrote:
If you consider when ice ages had 40,000 year cycles about 1 million years ago our planet got hotter than it is now.

James___ wrote:
So I'm figuring some things out that scientists have missed.

James___ wrote:
As Wake mentioned quite often, they haven't figured out yet why ice ages are cyclical.

Gamul1 wrote:

James___ wrote:
So I'm figuring some things out that scientists have missed.

Every time I read that my jaw goes a little lower and my head slowly shakes from side to side.

James___ wrote:

..Quoting Gamul1 from a couple of posts back...

>> Why do people who dont understand something always resort to personal attacks to make themselves feel smarter? I've never understood that because it only amplifies their ignorance. <<

Gamul1 wrote:

James___ wrote:

..Quoting Gamul1 from a couple of posts back...

>> Why do people who dont understand something always resort to personal attacks to make themselves feel smarter? I've never understood that because it only amplifies their ignorance. <<

Really not a personal attack. Just an observation.

Into the Night wrote:

No, you were making an insult...and that based on a lie.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

No, you were making an insult...and that based on a lie.

I was insulting you. But you still don't understand the point of my comment. because you are stupid.

Into the Night wrote:


You are not making a point. Insults are not an argument.