The energy and climate debate

[kommonsents]

There is a lot of historical data out there and available to all that take the time to find and review it, that indicates that Earth goes through various cycles of climate change.  One of the most interesting to me is the Vostok Ice Cores.  See chart at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...lation.jpg

The data indicates that CO2 levels followed the rise in temperatures, not the other way around as mainstream government and media would have us believe.

The data also indicates that Earth has been hotter and had more CO2 in the past and not influenced by man.

Logic then would indicate that there must be other causes that affect climate change, especially in the long (in man time) periods of roughly every 100,000 years or so.  Much research indicates that the sun is the main driving factor in climate change.

There are many sources of CO2 other than man including volcanic, insects, especially termites, animals and probably the largest of them all, the ocean.  As the ocean warms, it gives off CO2.  This is probably a prime reason why rising temperatures preceed rising CO2 levels.

When the sun is in its quiet periods, ocean temps fall and if it stays quiet for 30 to 40 years, Earth can enter an Ice Age, small or large.  As the Vostok chart below shows, Earth seems to have an ice age about every 80,000 to 100,000 years, at least according to that 400,000 year sample.

Of course, everyone is encouraged to do their own research.

It is not accurate to say that Man caused global warming is settled science.  Nor is it accurate to say that almost all scientists in the field agree with that.

If one looks at the data and information available, as I have for the past 25 years, the logical conclusions are that the Sun drives climate change, climate change occurs in cycles, large and small in Earth terms, man caused CO2 is a very minor contributor to changes in atmospheric CO2, and the real reason governments around the world push the climate change agenda is both political and financial.  Lots of money to be syphoned out of the people's pockets with carbon taxes.  Also, let's not forget the CO2 is plant food and part of the cycle that creates oxygen.   At least, that's the way it looks from here.

[TomCrooz]

Now take these computer models that once said on the cover of Newsweek in 1977 that the ice age is coming back. Add those computer models to the entire planet and I would civilly argue that computers cannot forecast the weather accurately three days in advance why should we think they can do climate for the planet. .

Perhaps one whose beliefs are based on fourty year old weather forecasts should consider an upgrade in their information resources.

So my question is when one sees the amazing progress in hydrocarbon industry computer signal processing over the past four decades how they might conclude similar efforts have not improved weather and climate forecasting?  Some regional forecasting I'm sure is more difficult than others, but as a close weather observer for four decades forecasts five to 10 days out continue to be more accurate with forecast variance continuing to tighten almost every year.  If you don't have a good idea what will likely be happening in 72 hours you should improve your weather resources.  I'd be happy to share some websites.

Share the websites with my local weather men.  They are more wrong than right 48 hrs out.

[AU74]

There is a lot of historical data out there and available to all that take the time to find and review it, that indicates that Earth goes through various cycles of climate change.  One of the most interesting to me is the Vostok Ice Cores.  See chart at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...lation.jpg

The data indicates that CO2 levels followed the rise in temperatures, not the other way around as mainstream government and media would have us believe.

The data also indicates that Earth has been hotter and had more CO2 in the past and not influenced by man.

Logic then would indicate that there must be other causes that affect climate change, especially in the long (in man time) periods of roughly every 100,000 years or so.  Much research indicates that the sun is the main driving factor in climate change.

There are many sources of CO2 other than man including volcanic, insects, especially termites, animals and probably the largest of them all, the ocean.  As the ocean warms, it gives off CO2.  This is probably a prime reason why rising temperatures preceed rising CO2 levels.

When the sun is in its quiet periods, ocean temps fall and if it stays quiet for 30 to 40 years, Earth can enter an Ice Age, small or large.  As the Vostok chart below shows, Earth seems to have an ice age about every 80,000 to 100,000 years, at least according to that 400,000 year sample.

Of course, everyone is encouraged to do their own research.

It is not accurate to say that Man caused global warming is settled science.  Nor is it accurate to say that almost all scientists in the field agree with that.

If one looks at the data and information available, as I have for the past 25 years, the logical conclusions are that the Sun drives climate change, climate change occurs in cycles, large and small in Earth terms, man caused CO2 is a very minor contributor to changes in atmospheric CO2, and the real reason governments around the world push the climate change agenda is both political and financial.  Lots of money to be syphoned out of the people's pockets with carbon taxes.  Also, let's not forget the CO2 is plant food and part of the cycle that creates oxygen.   At least, that's the way it looks from here.

These arguments have been debunked, ad nauseum, by actual climate scientists.  I trust their consensus over your talking points:

https://youtu.be/WAqR9mLJrcE

[AU74]

Here's a handy link to climate myths and what the science actually says about each one:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[2126]

"It is not accurate to say that Man caused global warming is settled science.  Nor is it accurate to say that almost all scientists in the field agree with that."

No, you are correct. But it IS absolutely accurate to say that 95+% of scientists that have actually studied the climate (climatologists) agree that the current climate changes are due to human activities over the last 200 years, and that the rate of climate change (due to human-produced carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses) has accelerated significantly in the last 50 years, primarily due to the pace of industrialization and its concomitant use of fossil fuels.

I also find it hard to believe that in 2015 there remain people who refuse to accept the science behind human-induced climate change. Unfortunately, there will always be a vocal minority who pick and choose those "facts" that fit their own personal beliefs, regardless of how inaccurate or misinformed those beliefs are. In my 35 years of studying, teaching about this issue at the PhD level, working with the United Nations and President Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development and writing about energy and climate (including several books), I have come to realize that no amount of rational discussion, actual facts, or scientific data will convince those who have chosen their position on this issue due to political persuasion rather than rational, open-minded and informed thought.

Additionally, if you wish to 'follow the money', then follow it directly back to the public relation coffers of the fossil fuel industry and its various organizations that have waged a decades-long war of misinformation regarding the climate issues that confront us. Without those efforts, the US would most certainly have long had in place an effective overall energy policy that would balance both climate isses and economic reality.

Finally, I also think that this forum is not really the appropriate place to have this particular discussion. Thank you.

[kommonsents]

AU, those to sites you provided links to are a bit short on facts and long on propaganda with not much to even consider unless one wants to blindly accept what is said as factual. Do you have any better research to share??

2126, I found it amusing that you produced a fairly long post based primarily on political correctness and no facts or citations and then end it with your opinion that this isn't the appropriate place for a discussion. I've said what it is so no more discussion??

Here's an article out of Forbe's that addresses the subject of consensus. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...ensus-not/

And another, also from Forbe's. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/...ng-crisis/

Here's one from Investor's Business Daily. http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials...change.htm

And then there's one from American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014...rming.html

There are lots more that deal with debunking the mythical consensus. There also lots of studies based upon the facts that help to explain climate change, which for quite some time, has been in a cooling phase.

It you study the Vostok chart I posted a link to previously, you will see that climate change is quite normal with Earth having Ice Ages about every 80,000 to 100,000 years and these Ice Ages are always followed by warming periods as well as cooling periods.

Obviously, during that small slice of time over a span f over 400,000 years, the Ice Ages nor the warming periods were caused by man. Also, according to the data they developed from those ice core samples, Earth had more CO2, higher temperatures as well as less CO2 and lower temperatures. Climate is cyclical. You can easily prove that to yourselves by reviewing the data from the past few hundred years.

[AU74]

Repeating your taking points doesn't make them any more true. The articles by known wingnuts aren't any more effective.

[Putncalls]

I think "wingnuts" says it all.

[AU74]

I think "wingnuts" says it all.

Yep:

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/thomas_lifson/

[kommonsents]

Interesting that it takes derogative name calling to make your points. I haven't seen any facts yet.