Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Saru

Climate change could lead to more wars

65 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jeremiah65

So Mike....it's a natural cycle...I can agree with that. So...just ignore it, do nothing and hope it goes away? Hope everything will work out for us and everything will be fine and dandy?

I agree that carbon tax and other legislation is just a grab for money, power and control...but that does not mean we can ignore what the possible damages can be from a shifting climate.

As I said above, I would like to continue to eat at a reasonably affordable price....I'd like to be able to heat my home in winter and cool it in summer without going broke...

Regardless of the cause, doing nothing or making no plans at all is a fools folly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spacenut56

Both the Pentagon and the CIA view climate change as a security threat to the U.S. They would be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msmike1

So Mike....it's a natural cycle...I can agree with that. So...just ignore it, do nothing and hope it goes away? Hope everything will work out for us and everything will be fine and dandy?

I agree that carbon tax and other legislation is just a grab for money, power and control...but that does not mean we can ignore what the possible damages can be from a shifting climate.

As I said above, I would like to continue to eat at a reasonably affordable price....I'd like to be able to heat my home in winter and cool it in summer without going broke...

Regardless of the cause, doing nothing or making no plans at all is a fools folly....

Ok, so how are you planning on changing natural cycles? Can't fight mother nature. You can prepare for it, agreed, but preparation and changing are two different things. Eating at an affordable price, and heating/cooling your home have more to do with the current and past administration's crooked tactics of enforcing their will on the American people through backdoor ways. See, if you walk up to someone eating and spit on their food in front of them you are in for a fight. If you are the cook, and you can do it in the back and bring it out to them, well, they don't know the difference.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Before global warming, climate change, climate chaos, or whatever the PC nuts are calling it now can have an effect on anything, it must first exist. That is a major problem because it doesn't. No proof. Climate and weather are constantly changing and cycling. It has been happening since the beginning of time. Overpopulation, pollution, etc.. are real worries. Global warming, well not so much.

Mike

Actually, it does, as shown not just the NAS but by BEST, which is ironically funded by skeptics and deniers.

Also, the argument works both ways, i.e., if overpopulation and pollution are concerns, then it actually becomes illogical to be skeptical of global warming, as actions needed to deal with the former are similar to those needed to deal with the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msmike1

Actually, it does, as shown not just the NAS but by BEST, which is ironically funded by skeptics and deniers.

Also, the argument works both ways, i.e., if overpopulation and pollution are concerns, then it actually becomes illogical to be skeptical of global warming, as actions needed to deal with the former are similar to those needed to deal with the latter.

Well, overpopulation and pollution are concerns real concerns. Real as in proven, it exists. Global warming has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is just as much evidence disproving it as proving it. It is not illogical to be skeptical of global warming because of this.

Mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27vet

Please...all goto http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm The earth has been much hotter in the past and for most of the time. Dr Scotese is well qualified and his work is credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Well, overpopulation and pollution are concerns real concerns. Real as in proven, it exists. Global warming has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There is just as much evidence disproving it as proving it. It is not illogical to be skeptical of global warming because of this.

Mike

But it has, as seen in the NAS final report on the issue (which looks at multiple reports from different organizations) and even BEST, which ironically was funded by skeptics. See for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Please...all goto http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm The earth has been much hotter in the past and for most of the time. Dr Scotese is well qualified and his work is credible.

This is also seen in Vostok data. The problem is that CO2 concentrations are correlated with temperature, and the former is now at record highs. Can it increase ave. temperature? According to the NAS and BEST, it will because of various positive feedback factors.

What's also important to note is that BEST was funded by skeptics in order to come up with an independent study of the matter. Unfortunately for skeptics, the results confirmed what the NAS and others have said.

Edited by MonkeyLove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27vet

Let's assume that the high levels of carbon are causing a temperature rise. We can only reduce the carbon levels by a small fraction, what impact will it have on global temperature? As we know, we are coming out of a glacial period and going into an interglacial period., so there are two factors causing the temperature rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msmike1

But it has, as seen in the NAS final report on the issue (which looks at multiple reports from different organizations) and even BEST, which ironically was funded by skeptics. See for yourself.

You keep referring to the NAS final report and the BEST as if these are the end all be all of all reports and that what they say is concrete and cannot be disputed. As I have said several times, there is just as much evidence refuting global warming, climate change, climate chaos, or whatever you want to call it as there is evidence supporting it. There are several problems with the NAS report and the BEST report that I won't, nor do I have the time to go into now. They are blaring problems that are just conveniently overlooked by believers and the government. Nobody can argue overpopulation, or pollution. The global warming theory, and I say theory because that is all it is, is used by the government as a money machine and a blindfold. Problems in the whitehouse? Bengazi, NSA, etc.. Hurry up and say something new and completely unfounded about global warming to get people to look away.

mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

You keep referring to the NAS final report and the BEST as if these are the end all be all of all reports and that what they say is concrete and cannot be disputed. As I have said several times, there is just as much evidence refuting global warming, climate change, climate chaos, or whatever you want to call it as there is evidence supporting it. There are several problems with the NAS report and the BEST report that I won't, nor do I have the time to go into now. They are blaring problems that are just conveniently overlooked by believers and the government. Nobody can argue overpopulation, or pollution. The global warming theory, and I say theory because that is all it is, is used by the government as a money machine and a blindfold. Problems in the whitehouse? Bengazi, NSA, etc.. Hurry up and say something new and completely unfounded about global warming to get people to look away.

mike

You are always free to give links to reports that show "glaring problems" with the NAS and BEST reports, if not what you think is a better report. It should only take you a few minutes to do so.

You will likely avoid BEST, which skeptics supported:

"Sceptics make BEST U-turn as study indicates warming"

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/sceptics-make-best-u-turn-as-study-indicates-warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

Lots of factors will cause more wars, by far the biggest one the growth of rabid political islam.

But "global warming"? Spare us this tired old horse.

Here is another look at the "global warming" scam:

http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/16372-climate-theories-crumble-as-data-and-experts-suggest-global-cooling

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

Weather is not climate.

Statistics, such as those CS has produced, regarding local weather phenomena can be indirect indicators of larger scale climate change - but often the data they provide is counter-intuitive towards what is actually happening.

Global warming, for instance, actually results in various local or regional long-term temperature decreases. This is because of various changes to large-scale systems brought about by global warming, that have the opposite effect at a local or regional scale. The postulated slowing of the Gulf Stream, for example, would result in temperature drops across much of Western Europe, including the UK.

I know it's been drummed out before, but it's worth repeating because it is important to people's perceptions of what is happening to our planetary climate. Weather is not climate.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msmike1

http://orangepunch.blog.ocregister.com/2010/05/20/nas-on-global-warming-consider-the-source/26519/

http://voices.yahoo.com/more-global-warming-fraud-berkley-earth-surface-10324941.html?cat=9

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/05/18/nas-climate-panel-fails-the-laugh-test/

Here are just a few I managed to pull up in about 5 minutes. Like I have said already, just as much evidence against it. Now, if you are going to continue this conversation please stop repeating the same studies over and over and over again. If that is the basis for your entire argument then don't debate at all.

Mike

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Please...all goto http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm The earth has been much hotter in the past and for most of the time. Dr Scotese is well qualified and his work is credible.

The earth has been both hotter and colder in the past. But that's not the problem. True, the earth was warmer during the Cretaceous. It also had almost twice as much oxygen in the air. A dinosaur couldn't breath in our air - he'd die from a lack of oxygen. Jurassic Park is impossible. Life is superbly adapted to the status quo. ANY change is for the worse.

We have now had several million years of colder-than-average temperatures. This has allowed huge methane deposits to build up on the sea floor. Warming of the oceans threatens to melt those deposits, releasing it into the atmosphere. More carbon in the air = more warming = warmer oceans = more methane being released = more carbon in the air...

We have already entrained the melt-off of the Arctic Ocean. That will have profound consequences for our way of life and there is probably nothing we can do now to stop it. The next threshold could well be those methane deposits. Over several centuries, methane release could raise the earth's temperature to near the boiling point. And that's going to have a significant impact on our way of life. Google: "methane gun."

Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27vet

Doug, my point is, how much can we really do to stop the phenomenon when the earth's population is growing at such an alarming rate? Particularly the third world who also generate a huge amount amount of carbon. I am an airline pilot flying mostly over Africa and I can tell you, in the dry season they burn everything in sight, releasing tons of carbon in the atmosphere. The same happens in Indonesia, South America and probably in Asia. My carbon footprint is tiny...a compact car, I live 1 km from work, and my electric consumption is minimal (I'm on a 3 KW supply). When I fly on vacation, the airline asks if I would like to pay carbon offsets. What a joke when all the poverty stricken people who pollute the air that I breathe don't and never will pay a cent. See the picture I posted earlier.

Ralph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Lots of factors will cause more wars, by far the biggest one the growth of rabid political islam.

But "global warming"? Spare us this tired old horse.

Here is another look at the "global warming" scam:

http://thenewamerica...-global-cooling

"Rabid political Islam" is one of several false flags created by GovCo to fool sheeple. In reality, many groups involved in the same, such as the al Qaeda, are funded by GovCo.

As for AGW, the reason why governments and businesses are in denial is because the only way they can earn tax revenues and profits is to keep the sheeple happy. And the best way to do that is to distract them through these false flags, which in turn are used by government to justify more military costs (passed on to the sheeple) and businesses to profit from attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msmike1

"Rabid political Islam" is one of several false flags created by GovCo to fool sheeple. In reality, many groups involved in the same, such as the al Qaeda, are funded by GovCo.

As for AGW, the reason why governments and businesses are in denial is because the only way they can earn tax revenues and profits is to keep the sheeple happy. And the best way to do that is to distract them through these false flags, which in turn are used by government to justify more military costs (passed on to the sheeple) and businesses to profit from attacks.

Global warming is real when their is no evidence, but radical islam is not? Seriously? You really have to be joking. Look, I will be the first to tell you that our Government is a snake in the grass, untrustworthy, bunch of baboons. I believe they have done and are doing a lot of underhanded crap. Maybe even, or actually most likely, edging on some of these radical islam groups, but Radical extreme islam does most certainly exist. With as many scandals surrounding our current president involving muslims/Islamists, and him being one himself, the last thing he wants to do is draw attention to events such as Bengazi by supporting the very people that did it. So, hey, lets through a dumbazz global warming scare at everyone so they will quit talking about issues that we all know happened, are happening, and are very real.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MonkeyLove

Global warming is real when their is no evidence, but radical islam is not? Seriously? You really have to be joking. Look, I will be the first to tell you that our Government is a snake in the grass, untrustworthy, bunch of baboons. I believe they have done and are doing a lot of underhanded crap. Maybe even, or actually most likely, edging on some of these radical islam groups, but Radical extreme islam does most certainly exist. With as many scandals surrounding our current president involving muslims/Islamists, and him being one himself, the last thing he wants to do is draw attention to events such as Bengazi by supporting the very people that did it. So, hey, lets through a dumbazz global warming scare at everyone so they will quit talking about issues that we all know happened, are happening, and are very real.

Mike

I didn't argue that radical Islam doesn't exist. What I argued is that it is used as a false flag to justify attack on countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, that's what makes the government a "snake in the grass" in the first place.

And, not surprisingly, the government and its counterparts abroad aren't taking action against global warming as well because less oil consumption works against them. Remember, more oil consumed means more earnings for businesses, and that means more tax revenues for government.

That's also why, not surprisingly, corporations are also generally unmindful of global warming, with some industries even supporting the denial machine.

With that, the only "global warming scare" is coming from scientists and those who are still listening to them. The rest, consisting of sheeple, support the GovCo line that there's no global warming, and if there is, then GovCo will find solutions to that easily. The same goes for peak oil and other "scares."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
msmike1

Yes, a lot of scientists are screaming global warming, but just as many say its crap. The Gov. line that there is no global warming? The Gov. is one of the main institutions pushing global warming. You may not have specifically said radical islam doesn't exist, but you did say it was created by the gov't. This is taken to mean that it doesn't really exist other than a gov't creation.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Doug, my point is, how much can we really do to stop the phenomenon when the earth's population is growing at such an alarming rate? Particularly the third world who also generate a huge amount amount of carbon. I am an airline pilot flying mostly over Africa and I can tell you, in the dry season they burn everything in sight, releasing tons of carbon in the atmosphere. The same happens in Indonesia, South America and probably in Asia. My carbon footprint is tiny...a compact car, I live 1 km from work, and my electric consumption is minimal (I'm on a 3 KW supply). When I fly on vacation, the airline asks if I would like to pay carbon offsets. What a joke when all the poverty stricken people who pollute the air that I breathe don't and never will pay a cent. See the picture I posted earlier.

Ralph

There are a couple studies out suggesting that:

1. There may be feedback loops that would very quickly halt warming if CO2 increases can be avoided, and

2. It may be possible to gradually remove CO2 from the air, returning the climate to whatever we think appropriate, perhaps 350 ppmbv.

The situation is only hopeless if we decide it is hopeless.

Most of the world's people cook with wood. Energy recovery is about 50% on average, but varies between 35% and 70%. A major push to replace inefficient stoves and fires with more-efficient ones would save those people money and cut pollution. That's a good project for the UN. WHO might take it on simple because a reduction in breathed smoke would improve health.

Another approach is to sequester more carbon with improved farming methods. The machinery is in place for the US to do this on most farms within two or three years. The remainder can be converted when their CRP contracts expire, one-by-one over the next ten years. All USDA has to do is require carbon-sequestering techniques in order to qualify for cost-shares and subsidies. They don't tell anybody they HAVE to do anything, only that they won't get government money if they don't. Very few farmers are in a position to turn down the government's money. The rest of the world will have to use whatever methods are applicable in their countries.

About the earth's population: growth is slowing. We will reach ZPG late in this century at just under ten billion people. After that, look forward to a long, slow implosion. Resources managers have to feed, clothe, house and water the world's people, if possible without destroying the resources that support us. Population is already declining in western Europe. The US will reach ZPG in about 2050. As people become more prosperous and as women become empowered, they choose not to have so many children. Equal rights for women is a conservation issue.

The technological problems can be solved. It's the politics of denial that are the problem.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

http://orangepunch.b...e-source/26519/

http://voices.yahoo....4941.html?cat=9

http://www.dailymail...-colleague.html

http://www.forbes.co...the-laugh-test/

Here are just a few I managed to pull up in about 5 minutes. Like I have said already, just as much evidence against it. Now, if you are going to continue this conversation please stop repeating the same studies over and over and over again. If that is the basis for your entire argument then don't debate at all.

Mike

I note that none of these are scientific publications. They are just popular press publications repeating some good rumors they heard. If you are trying to make an argument, you need something to support what you're saying. These don't support anything.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Let's assume that the high levels of carbon are causing a temperature rise. We can only reduce the carbon levels by a small fraction, what impact will it have on global temperature? As we know, we are coming out of a glacial period and going into an interglacial period., so there are two factors causing the temperature rise.

The last Ice Age ended (officially) 10,660 years ago. Temperatures went up slightly during the Altithermal and then eased back. Ocean levels (a good indicator of climate) have undergone only slight changes in the last 3000 years (The all-time high was from 250 to 400 AD at about 5.6 feet above modern.). The Milankovic Cycles are more-or-less flat at the moment (actually, trending downward slightly). From a climate perspective, the Ice Age is long past. We are in the Holocene and have been since the Younger Dryas ended.

I wouldn't give up on reducing carbon just yet, but first we have to quit releasing so much of it. There are quit a few proposals out there to sequester carbon - everything from proper tillage to simply burying biomass. We already have landfills where we bury old paper. Just keep doing it. The big thing at the moment is to cut down on carbon emissions.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

Yes, a lot of scientists are screaming global warming, but just as many say its crap. The Gov. line that there is no global warming? The Gov. is one of the main institutions pushing global warming. You may not have specifically said radical islam doesn't exist, but you did say it was created by the gov't. This is taken to mean that it doesn't really exist other than a gov't creation.

Mike

There was an article in "Science" three or four issues back that polled scientists on their opinions about global warming. As expected, climatologists are in near-perfect agreement that global warming is real, with the percentage decreasing as one moves away from climate and biological sciences. Engineering disciplines are the most skeptical with less than half accepting warming as real. Only in fields least-connected to climate science do more than half question global warming.

I think National Review spoke for non-scientific Americans: "Americans don't care what climate scientists think."

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29

As we know, we are coming out of a glacial period and going into an interglacial period., so there are two factors causing the temperature rise.

Here is an outline I did for a presentation several years ago:

Global Warming: The Null Model

The Problem

How do you know if the world is getting warmer when you don’t know how warm it was to start with?

Global Warming

A. Assumed to be Anthropogenic.

B. Does not include warming within natural climate fluctuations.

C. “Global warming” exists if, and only if, temperatures differ from what is expected under natural conditions.

History of Climate

A. Last Glacial Maximum – 19,000 yr. BP

1. Glaciers covered North America as far south as Long Island, the Ohio

River, northern Kansas, the Central Rockies and the Cascades.

2. Temperatures 12 - 20 degrees below modern.

3. Ended by collapse of West Antarctic Ice Cap and resulting change in

thermohaline circulation. Sudden warming in southern hemisphere spread

slowly northward.

4. Gradual return to cooler temperatures (but not as cool).

B. Warming Event – 17,300 yr. BP.

1. Temperatures rise 6 to 7 degrees.

2. Major melting of northern hemisphere glaciers.

C. Beginning of Great Lakes – 16,600 yr. BP.

- Pre-Maumee I – Ancestral Lake Erie.

D. Late Glacial Warming – 14,050 BP.

E. Oldest Dryas Cold Period – 13,800 to 13,670 yr. BP.

1. Glacial melting caused isostatic rebound earthquakes, which caused

massive iceberg flotillas, shutting down the Gulf Stream.

2. Temperatures 4 to 7 degrees below modern.

F. Bolling Warm Period – 13,670 to 13,540 yr. BP.

- Temperatures reach modern levels.

G. Older Dryas Cold Period – 13,540 to 13,350 yr. BP.

- Freshwater poisoning of Gulf Stream by catastrophic draining of pro-glacial

great lake.

H. Allerod Warm Period – 13,350 to 12,680 yr. BP.

1. First post-glacial inhabitants of Britain.

2. Pro-glacial Great Lakes.

3. Baltic Ice Lake.

I. Younger Dryas Cold Period – 12,680 to 11,570 yr. BP.

1. Sudden return to Ice Age conditions, rebound earthquakes, iceberg flotillas.

2. Temperatures 4 - 5 degrees below modern.

3. North American extinction of Ice Age megafauna.

4. End of Pleistocene.

History of Climate

J. Beginning of Holocene – 11,570 yr. BP.

- Sudden 3 to 4 degree warming. Greenland snowfall reaches 90% of modern

in just 2 years. Transition complete in less than 40 years.

K. Pre-Boreal Warm Period – 11,570 to 11,100 yr. BP.

1. Tree line advances north of Great Lakes.

2. Temperatures slightly above modern.

L. 10.2 KBP Cold Event – 11,100 to 9,800 Yr. BP.

1. Ice-rafting event – 11,100 yr. BP.

2. Catastrophic draining of Lake Agassiz into North Atlantic (10,900 yr. BP)

shuts down Gulf Stream.

M. Boreal Warm Period – 9,800 to 8,200 yr. BP.

1. First activity at Stonehenge – 9,650 yr. BP.

2. Marquette Glacial Readvance – 9,555 yr. BP.

3. Lake Agassiz drops to Kaiashk level – 9,400 yr. BP.

4. Ice rafting event – 9,400 yr. BP.

N. 8,200 yr. BP Cold Period – 8,200 to 7,800 yr. BP.

1. Final draining of Lake Agassiz-Ojibway; global sea levels rise 18 inches in

single event.

2. Severe drought; beginning of agriculture to cope.

O. Atlantic Warm Period (Altithermal) – 7,800 to 4,230 yr. BP.

1. Summer temperatures 2 degrees above modern.

2. Beginning of Irish History – 7151 yr. BP.

3. Biblical account of creation – 5,955 yr. BP.

4. Ice-rafting event – 5,900 yr. BP.

P. 4,100 yr. BP Cold Event – 4,230 to 4,010 yr. BP.

1. Cold, dry conditions.

2. Collapse of Akkadian Empire.

3. Ice-rafting event – 4,200 yr. BP.

4. Extinction of Wrangell Island mammoths – 4,000 yr. BP.

Q. Sub-Boreal Warm Period.

1. Global sea levels stabilize – 3,000 yr. BP.

2. Year 1 of Pictish Chronicle – 2929 yr. BP.

3. Ice-rafting event – 2800 yr. BP.

4. Founding of Rome – 2,704 yr. BP.

R. Sub-Atlantic Period.

1. Fall of Rome – 1,474 yr. BP.

2. Eruption of Krakatoa; beginning of Dark Ages Cool Period – 1,415 yr. BP.

3. Ice-rafting event – 1,400 yr. BP.

S. Medieval Warm Period – 950 to 600 yr. BP.

- Temperatures 1 to 2 degrees above modern.

T. Little Ice Age 500 to 110 yr. BP.

Thermohaline Circulation

A. Evaporation/cooling over large ocean surfaces.

1. Top water sinks, drawing in warm, salty surface water.

2. Creates ocean currents.

3. Heats/cools continents.

4. Controls global climate and weather.

B. Null model must assume no changes in thermohaline circulation.

1. Objective: model current climate, not a different one.

2. Change in thermohaline circulation would render model irrelevant

(Thermohaline circulation change = climate change).

Cause of the Problem

- Lack of time-series models that predict performance of climate proxies based on

pre-human performance.

Remedy - Create time-series models of 18O/16O ratios in sea sediment cores, ice cores

and lacustrine sediment cores. Dust-content of ice cores might also work.

A. Initial model from each core based on pre-1900 data.

B. Predictions for 20th Century proxies based on pre-1900 models

(Differences indicate climate change).

C. Predictions for 21st Century based on models validated for 20th Century.

Future Impact

A. Global warming confirmed: proceed with research to determine cause and

possible mitigation strategies.

B. Global warming debunked: remove unnecessary restrictions on economic

activity.

We can forget "B." Global warming has been confirmed; there is no evidence to the contrary.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.