You are off topic. We are not discussing CNN credibility but rather global warming. Was there anything in the CNN article you found to be especially untrue?
@tallakt,
Off topic for what? As I mentioned earlier, a serious scientific discussion about climate should be based on scientific work. I don’t recall any researcher mentioning CNN in the references to their work.
If I add that for some time now we’ve had at best 23 degrees Celsius and rain where I live, I’d be entitled to question the flood of information telling me that I’m burning up. But I’m not going to do anything with it. I have no expertise on climate, I leave that to the experts.
The opinions you or Doug present are just that, opinions.
Your discussion is nothing more than a barroom chat, and an unlisted one at that.
In discussing whether CNN is a reputable news outlet. To be on topic would be to consider the contents of the article.
A discussion that purports to be scientific about the climate can only be based on scientific publications. The CNN article cannot therefore be taken into consideration. It is the reference to it that is off-topic in such a discussion.
I dont see any such limitations in this forum, nor does the thread hold a high scientific level in the first place.
Nothing wrong with trying to raise the level of discussion I think, and it is an established field so there is enough science being done. A better understanding of climate change would help with planning also.
1 Like
I could not find the previous “topic”, but here’s the latest relevant article I noticed:
We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled ‘termination’ event significant enough to end an ice age | Live Science
I guess “they” just noticed this… The background info is that global warming has caused increased rain and an expansion of wetlands in Africa, as opposed to the “drought” conditions often assumed:
" A flurry of studies [since 2019] (ACP - An increase in methane emissions from tropical Africa between 2010 and 2016 inferred from satellite data) has linked the strange spike to soaring emissions from tropical wetlands, predominantly in Africa. A “significant change” in tropical weather ascribed to human-caused climate change has led wetlands to get bigger and more plants to grow there, thus leading to more decomposition — a process that produces methane, Nisbet said."
OK, so, more plants - that;s “green”, right? So, scientifically-speaking, “global warming” itself is “green”, correct?
One factor about warming is it increases evaporation and atmospheiric moisture, which increases snowfall, which reflects sunlight and causes the next glacial cycle of this current ongoing ice-age…
And of course you’ve probably read about the latest panic that the Gulf Stream is about to shut down causing an impending ice age in Europe.
Bottom line is nobody knows what will happen next, but the increasingly-confused “authorities” seem to want to cover their bases no matter what:
Whether it warns or cools from here, they want you to know two things:
- They told you it would happen;
- It’s your fault!
Funny how “the weather” used to be a “safe” topic for conversation with anyone.
Here in the driest desert in North America, with one of the coolest summers in memory, we’ve got four (4) inches of rain predicted over 3 days, due to an unauthorized Mexican hurricane making an illegal border crossing. 
By the way, ever wondered about claims of “increased drought” back-to-back with “increased flooding”…?
Could it be that they just pick scary stories to promote, even if they don’t agree?
By the way, is THIS a “hidden topic”? Because I couldn’t find it. And now I feel like nobody else will find it either. Some discussion. Very courageous to make sure nobody can find out relevant information.
Reminds me of all the censorship we now take for granted across the web: If you can’t argue the facts, keep people from seeing it.
I guess the “Global Warming” topic was closed (-minded), or we might say, censored. But as we who look at things from a longer viewpoint have pointed out, there has always been a ~30-year cycle of panic in the press over warming vs cooling. The current “warming” trend started gaining strong momentum around 1990, so it is about time for the narrative to flip back to warnings about the next glacial cycle of the current ice-age. Sure enough, if you Google “Gulf Stream” and click on “news” you’ll find a multitude of articles suggesting an impending cooling cycle for Europe, based on a supposed slowing of the Gulf Stream. Here;s a link to one of the articles:
Gulf Stream could collapse as early as 2025, study suggests | Climate crisis | The Guardian
Meanwhile, Tesla is worried about a slowing of sales growth, de-prioritizing their “Cybertruck”, while Ford and GM are also de-prioritizing their electric pickup truck efforts, due to lack of demand. The future of offshore wind in America is now looking to be too expensive, and that girl who said “How Dare You!” has suddenly lost credibility. Uh-oh. Nah, just kidding. Such external reasons for improving wind energy will come and go. The main thing is to let a love for wind energy itself be the driving force, not peripheral rationalizations. We know it can always be improved, and the cool thing about it is the fuel is free!
It should not matter if you love wind or are scared of global warming. You may anyhow come up with a great design for a windmill.
Global cooling vs warming; your argument dont add up. Europe cooling is not global cooling. It is apparent that you are just looking for a fight, I know you know better.
You kids just don’t get it. First, this instant “closing of a topic” and moving it to an invisible, secret location is a classless example of dictatorial censorship, closed-mindedness, and refusal to allow simple facts in a discussion.
Second of all, i’ve been telling everyone this would happen for the whole AWE hype cycle, and now it is beginning, on schedule - the 30-year cycle remains intact. First they had to change the terminology from “warming” to just “change”, and now, suddenly, the panic is shifting toward “cooling”.
Third of all, the ONLY reason most of you purport to pursue AWE IS “global warming” - it;s just like a religion being used as a rationalization for war, except these days the idea of “Saving Mother Earth” from the evil oil companies, and coal miners, etc. IS the closest thing most supposedly-educated (indoctrinated) people have to a religion.
And fourth of all, I’ve been pointing all this out forever, even predicting the whole warming hype back during the “cooling panic”, so it is not me looking for a fight, it is me maintaining what I’ve been saying since probably before you were born, trying to help the next generation see how things really are, (such as CO2 is as “green” as it gets, for example) and you are just hearing it now, and see it as me starting a fight, because you haven’t lived long enough to see the patterns. I tell it like it is. I don’t think you’ll find anything I’ve ever said that didn’t turn out to be true.
Hi Doug,
If there is global cooling, dress warmer.
If there is global warming (we had record temperatures in France in September), dress more lightly.
When I was at UC Irvine in the 1980’s, I had a lot of friends in the Chemistry Department, and at that time, the “big news” to incite mass-panic and worldwide compliance was “The Hole in the Ozone Layer”. As I recall, the researcher was Sherwood Rowland (People called him “Sherry”).
So Sherry Rowland’s group were taking data from way down in Antarctica, where few people could ever check to verify their findings, and cited an area of less ozone (which is caused by sunlight and temperature), miles in the sky, where there is the least sunlight, and lowest temperatures on Earth. There was little sunlight to form ozone there, and the lowest temps anyone could ask for - a perfect place for there to be less ozone, and luckily no ozone was needed there, since there was no sunlight coming down from a high angle there anyway, so a hole there would not matter.
My take was:
- I never heard any baseline data establishing that the “hole” was new, rather than just a normal feature of low sunlight and low temps that had always been there;
- Dupont’s patents had run out on Freon, but if Freon was outlawed, they could have new patents on the replacement;
- Third world economies and populations could be kept down if the people had no access to refrigeration and air conditioning;
- There could be some unstated concern that Aliens watching us from afar might detect the CFC’s and realize they might need to come and visit us, to see what’s going on here.
In short, as someone who routinely walked by the lab that “discovered” this, I was skeptical of the validity of the “research”.
How could there NOT be a “hole” in the ozone at the South Pole?
Where was the evidence that there was no “hole” previously?
To me, the whole thing seemed political and economic.
A way to force the whole world to adopt new technology, discarding what was known to work.
Well, today, they are acknowledging that the hole is not shrinking, and giving all sorts of excuses about “La Nina”, volcanoes, and low temperatures causing the “hole”.
Wait a minute - low temperatures? What about “global warming”? I thought we had out-of-control heating? La Nina - an ocean current? An ocean current could also cause a “hole”? Volcanoes could cause a “hole”? So the hole is suddenly a natural phenomenon? So why did we ban Freon?
Well, as you may have noticed, I seem to have a natural inclination to debunk things, and this was a biggie for me, way back before “global warming” - at that time we were still being told to panic about “global cooling”. And cool temps were one stated cause of the “hole”.
Anyway, I later saw this as a precursor - maybe a training drill, to get us “trained” to “obey” whatever new “scientific” theory might be imposed and funded, to force our compliance over, say, using common, everyday fuels to power our civilization. That way they could tax every human activity. So here we are with that.
And here’s the article explaining how, 40 years later, there is no recovery of “The Ozone Hole”, implying it was natural phenomenon in the first place. So, “follow the science”, and be at least a little skeptical whenever someone is using cherry-picked “data” to try and change the behavior of everyone, worldwide.
1 Like
I find this chart very interesting:
timelineiceagetemps.jpg (4837×1339) (donsmaps.com)
It shows that temperatures have been, on average, decreasing for the past 5000 years, with the recent “little ice age” from around 1500 - 1800 AD, bringing the lowest temperatures seen in Earth since 8000 years ago. Never seen this exact information before, although I’ve heard it described. This chart is a real eye-opener.
Hello Tallak: OK so the irony I was pointing out, is that they started out recognizing how cold spells cause mass death, then using that as evidence we have to fight warming. It makes no sense whatsoever, but that is the state we are currently in.
Meanwhile, what about the ACTUAL greenhouse effect of CO2, which is that it makes plants grow better, and so commercial greenhouses have natural-gas burners inside, that add CO2 to the internal atmosphere to enhance plant growth (greening the interior of the greenhouse)? What about THAT “greenhouse effect” of CO2??? The only actual greenhouse effect of CO2, that actually involves an actual greenhouse? The one that promotes life?
Once again, the alarmists state everything backwards, because they call a return to a cold, dry, desert environment for the whole world “green”, when it is the exact opposite. Not saying it is right or wrong, just pointing out, if someone is capable of noticing not only little details that don’t match up, but the entire over-riding theme of “green”, there is nothing “greener for the planet” than burning coal, and nothing less green than wind & solar.
Every time the mind-controlled zombies hear the word “green”
they think of, let’s say, a bike trail that is “greener” than a freeway, or maybe tending their organic herb garden while recycling milk cartons, but then they extend that inappropriately on to the whole world, pretending that lowering CO2 will “green the planet” when the exact opposite is true. When you hear only ONE side of an argument or debate, and when the terms used are obviously completely opposite to reality, that’s time to question what you are hearing.
Most people, even scientists, are too busy with their own daily lives to question it, and end up simply repeating the nonsense, thinking someone else must be guarding the gate of truth and making sure everything they hear is correct. Well, start with “green” and figure out what the REAL greenhouse effect is (the one actually used in greenhouses) which is to make everything green in the greenhouse, extrapolate and stop using the term “green” if you want to turn the Earth back into a disease-ridden, dry, frigid, wasteland of mile-thick ice! Just sayin’, look at the whole picture. I don’t claim to have any magic answer, but at least see the whole picture, rather than what is being spoon-fed to the unquestioning zombies!
But we do agree that the CO2 level is increasing, and for man made reasons?
Yes, it looks like mankind has inadvertently resurrected an otherwise dying planet, where plate tectonics had been slowly eliminating all carbon (life) from the surface, storing it deep underground, in a dead state, with atmospheric CO2 levels so unprecedentedly low, that in many places plants could no longer survive. Most interglacial periods only last 1000-2000 years - this one has been in place for over 10,000 years. Could it be our slash & burn agriculture? Our goats and sheep overgrazing and eating up all the plants? Rice paddies emitting methane? Or maybe all the large mammals in North America being killed 10,000 years ago, possibly by hunting? Who knows?
CO2 levels had never been that low, in the known geological record, going back billions of years. We were already in “The Little Ice Age”, when the industrial revolution got started, and we started making steam engines etc. Suddenly there was hope. The big freeze began to slowly abate. Perhaps there really is some sort of mass survival instinct - a Gaia spirit if you will - that used humanity to unknowingly save the planet from an otherwise impending “snowball Earth”. Maybe next, we’ll save it from another catastrophic asteroid impact.
Certainly, the past 10,000 - 12,000 years of near constant temperatures is unusual, according to the ice core data. Could those 10,000 years of steady temperatures have been anthropogenic in origin? Before fossil fuels were even “a thing”? Seems likely to me.
Somehow, we’ve briefly pulled out of the stone age. But it might be a tenuous and uncertain question whether we can remain that way. Brains have been shrinking for 40,000 years, so far…
As good as plants are at growing Doug
Humans are better at burning and chopping
Now with tech at scale, we’re bloody amazing at killing trees n green stuff.
Since we started with an xkcd timeline…
Please look see if you see any particular pattern in this to scale timeline
1 Like