Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
so, apart from the continued ice retreat that has happened for last 20000  years or so, is this human- induced temperature rise actually going to start some time? It's  around 20 years since there was any global rise, the sun is very quiet ( usually indicating a cool spell ), but government sponsored scientists have started trying to make 'denial' a moral crime.  What's  going on?
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmorbiusx33:
morbiusx33 Featured By Owner Aug 16, 2018  Hobbyist Photographer
"There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change; dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don't wait up."

(Australian professor, Dr. Ian Plimer, author of "Heaven and Earth") 
Reply
:iconrevilo-d:
Revilo-D Featured By Owner May 18, 2017
The average temperature in a nearby cave rose from 8.45 in the late seventies to 9.5 nowadays. We do have an increase in global temperature, that's or sure. 
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner May 27, 2017  Hobbyist General Artist
Indeed, the climate changes all the time. not long ago all of northern Europe and America and Asia were under kilometers of ice.
Reply
:iconrareearthgallery:
RareEarthGallery Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2017
Just take a look at any of the ISS flyovers at night and you can see how trashed and thin our atmosphere is getting, where all you see is massive over populated city lights, where there is very little wilderness left.

We are increasing the population at 250,000 per day. World banks will tell you that over 65% of the worlds population earns less than $2.00 per day. I have a 1000 dollar bill for anyone, if you can prove to me how to balance out a global economy without consuming three more planets especially when you will be approaching over 10 billion people within one more generation.

We have trashed and destroy 40% of this planets capability to replace oxygen. Oxygen levels are dropping below 18%, meaning that if you shrink the planet down to the size of a basketball, that the atmosphere back in the 1960's use to be the thickness of two sheets of paper around that basketball. Now it is only 1.5 sheets of paper thick. But stupid humans do not give a damn about sunlight shining through a thinner atmosphere. This is why HAARP and Geoengineering is taking place. Global warming does not just effect the surface of the planet, but everything down to the core. This includes pole shifts. Don't believe any of this? Then just heat up a magnet and see what happens to it Magnetic Fields. HAARP has multiple, multiple functions including acting as a magnetic shield in our outer atmosphere. We have anywhere from 5 to 7 new volcano eruptions every week now.
 
Don't believe any of this? Then ask the astronauts that are doing the research. Edgar Mitchell gave extreme warnings about this. 

Corporate industry does not give a damn about you or the planet. I have had corporate directors tell me point blank, that when the economy is good the planet is trashed. You cannot have both. Humans are to stupid and easy to mind control and do not have the intelligence to find balance on this planet.

Don't believe any of this? Then I will send you a couple of hundred/thousand links showing the data. People refuse to do the research, and you will not see this information in any of the news media.

It is going to be a pleasure to watch over 5 billion people disappear off this planet because they base their lives on assumption and consumption.

This is also why the UN stated in Time magazine that they intend to have the entire planet genetically modified by the year 2045 through the Human Genome Project. Numerous TED talks on this subject, including GMO and seed banks.

Are you a Angelic Human or a Droid Super Human?

Only AI will survive this spiritual war between Singularity and Duality, where the Hive mentality is to stupid and easy to control, where the ultimate form of slavery is to enslave those who do not realize that they are slaves.
Reply
:iconshogun101:
Shogun101 Featured By Owner Apr 13, 2016
Science is by nature intended to be definitive. You seldom hear arguments against the principles of gravity, or Newton's laws. The science isn't even closed to settled with regards to climate change. "Global warming" or "climate change" as it's now referred to is rubbish.
Reply
:iconsandradee791:
sandradee791 Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2017  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
when you're convinced everyone will be under water.  Pardon us for not waiting until death comes before we admit the obvious.  Moron.
Reply
:iconfirestorm31z:
firestorm31z Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2016
cziiki did you get anythiing out of this discussion?
Reply
:iconfirestorm31z:
firestorm31z Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2016
govt. scientist rely on computer models and they are more often wrong!  more to do with science corruption.

follow the money...  In the United States, climate research funding was only 20 million in the 1990's.  Today, its funding is like 1 billion.

This planet was much warmer than it was today.   2000 years ago, Italy then as the Roman Empire, could grow grapes in the grapes in the mountains, could not do that until a few years ago.

That said, it takes alot of energy necessary to create climate change far more than we are capable in this industrialized age.

One only has to look at the eruptions of a number of volcanoes like Mount St. Helens or like the active Iceland volcanoes on the amount of chemicals disharged into the atmosphere.  Its effect is very influential on weather patterns worldwide. They cause temperature drops.  Its said that when the volcano Kratakoa blew its top, the world in the 1800's (don't remember what year) went a year without summer.

Even in china, they have serious air pollution problems resulting from burning coal which produces smog.  that smog drops local temperature by 1-2 degrees in a specific local region of china.

what bugs me that when people go around saying that CO2 is the number one green house gas in the atmosphere.  It isn't. 

It is water, H2O, in the form of water vapor.  There is so much water in the atmosphere that that it makes the CO2 argument irrelevant.

Methane, btw, is #3, CO2 is #2.

That said, the warming radiation is coming from the Sun & from other stars in this galaxy.

Scientist denies that the sun has anything to do with the warming which is bullshit.

there is a theory by 2 scientist from I think Norway or Denmark (I forget where).  they proposed that the Earth's cloud cover (H2O gas) acts as steering wheel for climate conditions.  the amount of cloud cover is what sets the climate conditions over a specific area and this is dependent on how much radiation Earth's atmosphere recevies from the Sun & other stars.

More cloud cover = more cooling, less hotter,  Less cloud cover, less cooling, more hotter.

they never could get the funding to prove their theory.  my suspicion is that this would destroy the on going scam if proven correct.

so that said, whatever pollution we produce, we're statistical noise as compared to what mother nature can produce.
Reply
:iconvonluck:
VonLuck Featured By Owner Edited Mar 6, 2016
Yes, without the sun, Earth would be frozen like Pluto. But we are not discussing Pluto, are we?  Of course cloud shade is cool.  But the sun and the clouds are almost constant, and we cannot control them.  Have you ever gotten into a car in the winter?  Outside temperature is 40 degrees.  But inside a parked car, it's 60 degrees.  That's the "greenhouse effect."  Car windows let in the solar radiation but the warmed air is trapped.  A thin layer of CO2 above clouds does the same thing.  Yes, by very very small amount when compared to sun.  But after years it adds up.  If we could block the entire sun for 3 days, forget the global warming, we'll have a global chill.  I'm sure Dubai is willing to give you 100 Billion dollars, if you can put clouds over Dubai.  But nobody has figured out how to manipulate clouds yet.  And who knows what blocking will do to fungal growths, mosquitoes, jet stream, ocean currents, bee population, another Katrina, etc.  .  . and these things are what they are talking about when they say "climate change."  

"Global warming" can bring record amount of snow in NY and coldest winter in PA, as it dries up rivers in CA, and kills 10,000 people in heatstroke in Europe.  It's the uneven distribution of heat that freezes one area, heats other areas, and creates stronger storms.  Almost every human had flu before, but 1 degree warmer weather could make other viruses more active.  We have no immunity for new diseases.  Zika could be one of those.  With Zika, children are born with severe brain damage, they often die.  Those who survive are severely brain damaged.  With warmer weather, Zika is moving up to North America.  Other diseases increased too.  CDC reported 11,000 lime disease in 1995, that was raised to 30,000 in 2013.  Untreated, Lime disease can destroy heart, or damage nerves.  We can put up better insulation up in attics to shield 1-2 degree heat rise.  But what good is insulation, if mega storms like Katrina totals the house?  Weird disease pops up, weird pests show up, we use more pesticides, bees die, no bees and no rain fails crops, and cows die from lack of crops?  All these things that are already happening.  They seem unrelated, but every living thing thrives on certain temperature.  Many will die before adopting to the new desert temperature.  Sure, there are new diseases all the time, and Katrina was a levy burst, not the storm itself.  But that levy held the water back for 50 years.  Why did it burst?  Because more heat transfer makes storms stronger. 

All living things came from warm primordial soup billion years ago.  But we were were germs then.  After we became humans, we often die from germs and viruses.  You are right, CO2 does almost nothing compared to Sun (which burns 6 trillion Hiroshima bombs every minute).  Even if we explode all the nuclear bombs on earth, it's still going to be "statistical noise" when compared to the power of sun (but of course we'll be all dead).  Sun has been constant for millions of years.  What's not constant is that this earth had never seen so many cars and so many power plants in its 4 billion year history until now.  Decade to decade, it might not seem much, but 50 years ago earth had 3 billion people, and 100 million cars.  Now the world has 7 billion people, and 1.2 Billion cars.  And you are right H2O is a good insulator.  But I don't think H2O has increased 1.2 Billion times during the past 4 billion years.  And we are talking about atmospheric CO2 that made above troposphere where H2O is trapped.  Clouds reflect heat from the sun.  That heat reflected off of clouds used to go directly out of earth.  But CO2 molecules above cloud shoots it back down.  Some of which gets reflected back from the clouds again.  But some heat gets trapped on earth.  That little heat added for the past 150 years since industrial age, is what we are talking about. 

In 1 billion years, germs became animals and plants.  1.1 billion more cars burning oil can have an impact.  Plus hundreds of power plants to supply electricity to 4 billion more people, plus 1 billion gross tonnes of ships moving containers across oceans.  Yes, earth is big and heat trapped by CO2 is tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny amount when compared to the sun, but every year it adds up.  If there is no change to diseases, crops, cattle, or storms, who cares about 1-2 degrees?  But I am worried about swine flu that wipes out ham and bacon, bird flu hitting chicken supply, some disease like Mad cow disease that could kill off cows, swarms of bugs that eat all of wheat and rice, zika virus that creates dead babies, grandmas dying of heat strokes, another Katrina wiping out New York, Venice or Netherlands this time.  Some of these things had happened already.  We may have to eat bugs for protein.  These crazy unknown variables is what's scary about global warming, due to "statistical noise" of CO2.  Tiny rise of temperature 10,000 years ago finished ice age, and allowed humans to thrive.  I like green-age better than ice-age.  I just don't want a desert-age.  It's not like desert is shrinking.  Some humans will survive no matter what.  We just don't know if it's going to be you or me who's going to be in the dead 1 billion people in coming decades.  If a medical doctor had to take out his heart and put in an artificial one because of lime disease (most humans don't live longer than 10 years on artificial hearts--which means it's a slow death sentence), who's to say, I'm not going to die by some disease I'm not immune to?  That's why people talk about "global warming." 
Reply
:iconpentaxianspentax:
pentaxianspentax Featured By Owner Oct 19, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
What's going on is that the myth that is "climate change" is a billion dollar industry. Why would any "scientist" want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg? It's now been proven numerous times that the IPCC's supposedly "accurate" data has been faked, twisted, cajoled to get the results they want. There are actually some other scientists who predict we may be entering a 300 year cooling period. That will be far more catastrophic for our civilisation than a few degrees warming. 

Remember the 1970's and 1980's when CFC's were banned? That was to stop "global cooling". Then we had "global warming" and that has now morphed into "climate change" as if the climate is not changing all the time, anyway. We've just been lucky that the last 5000 years or so has been relatively stable. Prior to that, the Earht's climate change a lot more than we would find comfortable, today. Let's not forget too that, was it not for a few temporary warm spells, the Romans would not have been able to grow grapes in the UK and Greenland would not have been colonised by the Vikings. All of these changes in climate happened long before the use of fossil fuels.

So, it's all about the money. Without the ability to invent some crisis or other, all these "scientists" will need to find other jobs. It's a pretty sad world we live in, really.
Reply
:iconfirestorm31z:
firestorm31z Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2016
following a mantra I've heard... "never let a crisis go to waste"
Reply
:iconpentaxianspentax:
pentaxianspentax Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2016  Hobbyist Photographer
LOL!
Reply
:iconrubber-ducky-fg:
Rubber-Ducky-FG Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2015
One very negative aspect of this whole theory is deciding not to plan for your own future. I actually believed it in the late 90's. Back then it was about "4 years away" It was "scientific"  so why save money, get educated? Just live for today and fuck the future. So now here it is 18 years later and not much has happened. We're way beyond that "4 years away" crap. Believe what you want but how about respecting people that have a very clear reason to disagree with you.
Reply
:iconpentaxianspentax:
pentaxianspentax Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
A good (unbiased site) for data is woodfortrees.org. See, for instance woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3…. You can select data sets and change time lines, etc.
Reply
:iconpaws4thot:
paws4thot Featured By Owner Jul 22, 2015
Despite the comments by the AGW jihadists below, the temperature rise can be more or less explained by the end of the "Little Ice Age" (~1300 to 1850 CE).
Reply
:iconryan-owens:
Ryan-Owens Featured By Owner Edited Jul 20, 2015
I'm no scientist but a few basic facts:
1) Global warming is a bad term (actually coined by the media not the scientists). Over the next 50-1,000 years we will (already are) see a change in weather patterns. tman300 gets into that in detail. The world won't just suddenly get hotter. If that were the case it would actually be manageable. In fact we are on the verge of a mini ice age because of normal sun spot activity cycles. Winters in the next 10-20 years will get colder and its likely summers will get hotter (which is counter ice age and a direct result of pollution). However at the end of this ice age when the sun spots get more active we will see parabolic weather changes. At which point its past the tipping point for our current technology to control. Ocean currents, jet streams, and upper atmosphere condition will change. First more delicate animals will become extinct and some very important plant life will die off. When this happens its the death knell for humanity. We may have another 1,000 years but right now is the only chance we have of curtailing extinction.
2) Would it really hurt anyone except big industry to limit pollution to an as needed basis. Solar, Wind, and Water power makes more sense in the long run because these things will NEVER run out. Nuclear is a good option too but still has long term draw backs. Good public transport in cities is more efficient and as cities get bigger is a logical evolution for space economy. Limiting and making it more expensive for machine industries will create jobs. Better recycling will make our limited resources last longer. So even if you don't 'believe' in climate change why not make some smart choices for the future. If it does end up being true well then you helped save the world. If it isn't well then we've just invested in a more advanced society for humanities future.
3) I like conspiracy theories. I don't believe in many but the most interesting thing to look at is the motives. What possible motive would scientist have for spreading false climate change propaganda. Now think about what possible motive big industry (oil, coal, cars) have for denying climate change. Its as simple as that.
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Three interesting subjects for discussion i see, but You didn't actually mention your facts yet? 
Reply
:iconcanadis:
Canadis Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015
*ahem* Well, did you actually mention your facts?

A short itroduction:
www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/200…

And a little bit longer:
epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_S…

Of course, there are much more good (and better) books and articles, one just need to search. I recommend google scholar as a start.
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
is canadis another username for ryan-owens? If so, I'm not entirely clear how these links match your "the facts".
Reply
:iconcanadis:
Canadis Featured By Owner Edited Jul 20, 2015
As a student of environmental and sustainability science I could write a few pages about the scientific facts of climate change (the correct term, global warming is irritating, as e.g. some regions are going to cool down in the long run or will get more rain - too much rain, in fact) every time I see posts from climate deniers. But as in Germany it would be everywhere on this world: Deniers stick to their made up facts and will call out on scientific majority for "making propaganda". If deniers visit 100 docs and 99 of thoose telling them they are ill, the wouldn't believe the minority. When it comes to climate change, deniers want to believe in the less then 0,1 doctor-minority. It's depressing.

Therefore: Point number 3 nails it.
In addition: Why should scientist who are paid by the state (would be nice, if the state would really pay the money which is needed) arguing for climate change, when this state is most often ruled by people getting money from industries like the oil-, coal-, car-, etc.-industry? Why, if not for the fu**ing reason that it's a really urgent and big problem for mankind?

Sry for the bad english^^
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Pretending human behaviour is rational is "nailing it"? I would love people to discuss fact rather than wonder about the psychology of a group of people having an opinion.  That subject, by the way, opens a can of worms that mostly disagree with your rationalist hopes.
Reply
:iconcanadis:
Canadis Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015
If humans were rational, there would be no discussion at all. But a lot of humans are lazy and don't want to think rational. And a lot of people don't want to be rational, because they would need to overthink their own circumstances and lifes.
So, no pretending of too much rational human behaviour.
The facts? Without climate debate: There is a sphere in space, with restricted amount of area and ressources. We should overthink our behavior and handle that restriction with care, e.g. not polluting the air we breathe or damaging the ozone layer. A sideeffect would be the saving of the climate.

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your third sentence. My English is not as well as it should be...

To the general discussion: Climate change denial (having in opinion on that special topic) is a moral crime. Climate change will killing people, it takes our crop at risk, it is a main factor of biodiversity loss (and as that a reason of the reduction of the ecosystem services we rely on, including CO2-storage), etc.
People who actively or passive undermine the needed change towards a save future are acting immorally. Check "Categorical imperative" with the addition of Hans Jonas: "Das Prinzip Verantwortung" (engl.: The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age).
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
Point of contention: you say (rightly) that we are heading into a cooling period. Some research suggests that it might be another LIA, but that's not my point here. You also state that when things warm up again, it will be beyond 'current' ability to control. But when it warms up again will be anywhere from 30 to 60 years from now (if not longer). That does not compute *g*
Reply
:iconryan-owens:
Ryan-Owens Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2015
As of right now no one on earth has the ability to purify carbon in the air. And short of cold fusion I don't see it happening in the future. It can be very realistically demonstrated on a small scale that green house gasses trap heat and change weather patterns. Just about the only actual success of the bio-dome project was to prove just how fast environments can die off when CO2 levels rise above manageable levels. Something as simple as the extinction of bees is a pebble that starts an avalanche.
What does the timeline matter? If we can't get our act together and start to at least try to limit the human destruction of the earth. It doesn't matter if the tipping point is tomorrow or 1,000 years in the future. Yes its very hard to predict how long the maunder minimum will last the last one was from 1645 to 1715. The sun is nearly impossible to predict our timeline of studying it is just too small. But it doesn't matter if it lasts 10 years or 200 years when it ends its a trigger for the already compounding green house problem. More sun activity means more heat getting trapped and more juristic climate change. By the time that its actually happening it will be too late because the only solution is reduction (no clean up possible).
But on to my other points would it hurt anyone to switch over to renewable energy sources?
Reply
:iconpentaxianspentax:
pentaxianspentax Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
It's just come out that the IPCC's own data is seriously error ridden. So much so, that their "worse case scenario" warming figures are 400% higher than they should be. All I know is, we're having one of the coldest winters we've had for some years, so I'd like some "global warming" please!
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Weather is not climate.  One rainy cold winter in London an elderly gentleman sought to disprove climate change to me on the basis of English weather, in a month when south America was at record breaking high temperatures.
Reply
:iconpentaxianspentax:
pentaxianspentax Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Hobbyist Photographer
Yes, the problem is that the International Panel on Climate Change's own data is incorrect. So, basically, the warming tthe IPCC have been predicting to 2100 is 400% more than we should be expecting to see by 2100. 
We're having one of the coldest winters here since records began, so my flippant remark relates to that. All up, I'd like a warmer world, not a colder one! I have no idea why the USA is seeing record highs. Possibly, we're entering a phase of more changable weather, who knows!?!
Reply
:iconkajm:
Kajm Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2015  Hobbyist Writer
You've got the right of it. The two before me are well-steeped in the propaganda.

You will find a great deal here that will fill in the gaps the other two seem to be unaware of kajm.deviantart.com/gallery/33…
Reply
:icontman300:
tman300 Featured By Owner Edited Jul 19, 2015
Mankind has been helping the process of climate change since the begining of the Industrial Revolution. That fact cannot be denied even though there are cycles in nature of varying lengths (sun output, precession of the equinoxes, shifts of the magnetic field, changes in planetary system orbits, ...) that either add to or mitigate mankind's effect. The big problem is that we as a species are facing our own potential extinction unless we ameliorate our interference in the natural cycles. Right now we are facing a situation of increased weather severity and unpredictability no doubt exacerbated by our addition of millions of tons of CO2 annually and the effects of decades of chlorofluorocarbon and other carbon based gases being pumped into the atmosphere. The oceans used to bail us out by absorbing almost everything we added when we were only a few billion, but our numbers keep growing and evidence abounds that they can no longer keep up. This whole denial of the facts on the ground argument/movement reminds me of the days when "scientists" affiliated with industry denied that lead in gasoline had deleterious effects. Eventually, sanity won out and the lead has been removed almost across the globe. If some wish to behave like ostriches and bury their collective heads in the sand, that is their right but I in all honesty do not wish them well. My biggest concern revolves around 2 things; 1) The shutdown of the Atlantic conveyer (The Gulf Stream is part of this system) which transfers equatorial heat into the Northern Latitudes. A measurable decrease in the salinity of the deep northern ocean has already happened due to the increased infusion of fresh water from the melting Arctic ice cap and northern clime glaciers. If the trend continues unabated it will shut down and that is an indisputable scientific fact. This will result in massive weather pattern disruption including an unprecedented desertification of the equatorial latitudes (adios rain forests) and the potential for almost year long winters on the East Coast,UK and Northern Europe (what are we going to eat I wonder). 2) The increased release of methane trapped in the deep ocean sediment. There is a massive amount of methane trapped in our deep ocean, more than even that trapped in the northern perma frost. If this is released we as a species more than likely couldn't survive as we would be facing a runaway greenhouse effect that would take millions of years if ever for natural processes to ameliorate and make the planet habitable again for higher life forms. I am not a "chicken little" crying "the sky is falling" and quite frankly I'll be dead and buried before we as a species face the worst, but imho we owe it to future generations to leave the planet a little better off than when we found it. Sorry this is so long.
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
The Atlantic conveyor is unlikely to go away,  as it's mostly a result of the rotation of the earth. Northern hemisphere clockwise ocean currents in both the Pacific and the Atlantic mean that Seattle and a London are warmer and wetter than their latitude would otherwise suggest.
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
You will be aware of course that an abundance of co2 at much higher level than now was a significant factor in the blossoming of plant life on earth. 
Reply
:icontman300:
tman300 Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2015
True enough, however that is an irrelevant argument often championed by scientists in the pocket of large oil companies and other interests vested in the status quo. At the time plant life was "blossoming" (I'm assuming you are referring to the Carboniferous epoch) oxygen levels were much higher (35% vs 21% today) as well and hydrocarbon gases (also called organic gases with chemical structure CnHn) were much much lower as well. It is the climate change engendered by our addition of both CO2 and hydrocarbons that is endangering our, other higher life forms, and plants survival. No matter what the earth will do just fine as will lower lifeforms such as bacteria.
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Co2 is about 0.000397 of the atmosphere.  Nitrogen is 0.78, oxygen 0.2095, there's a bit if argon, the rest fairly small.  Though small, the proportion of co2 is essential for plant life of course.  There are, as far as I know, no actual studies showing more than that co2 and glaciation cycles match each other, rather than one causing the other.  If you match bikini wearing and weather cycles you can conclude that bikinis cause sunshine - in the same way you can conclude that atmospheric co2 causes interglacial warm periods.  At the moment as far as I know the models don't match the facts over the last 50 years leading to many studies to explain the lack of global warming that was predicted . Most rely on extrapolating bacK through data that was not actually gathered - antarctic ice thickness, deep ocean temperature - and hoping that there might be mechanisms that make the model compatible with the facts.
Reply
:icontman300:
tman300 Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015
I'm not trying to be offensive but you are welcome to keep your head in the sand if that is your choice.
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
This is what my posting is about.   It seems the are no answers to why there is actually no unusual (long term) human induced climate change even after decades of predictIons.  People say stuff lyour comment here with no factual backup, as if it's a belief not science they are discussing.
Reply
:iconappetitive-soul:
Appetitive-Soul Featured By Owner Jul 19, 2015
Evidently you've isolated your self by only reading propaganda sites funded by the oil companies. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and  assume you've been captured by them unknowingly. The fact is however, that the two warmest years on record are 2010 and 2014 (2015 will be the warmest yet unless there is some drastic and unexpected change), and the next warmest years have all taken place since 1997. SO your statement "It's  around 20 years since there was any global rise" is just a fantasy (or an advertising slogan). Its correct that if global warming were due to the sun, it would lessen over the next couple of decades, buts its not, because its being driven by CO2 int he atmosphere. Any cooling effect from the sun won't even be noticed in the steep rise that's been accelerating for the last 50 years. The fact that CO2 is better as reflecting infra-red radiation (trapping in in the atmosphere after sunlight hits the earth;s surface as is changed into heat) has been known for over a century and the first predictions of Global warming were made in the nineteenth century. If you deny that, you're arguing that physicists and chemists don't understand the basic laws of their sciences, and they obviously do.

Here are some links, for what they are worth:

www.nytimes.com/2015/01/17/sci…

www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/sci…

climatecrocks.com/

thinkprogress.org/climate/2015…


Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 23, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
For what they are worth. One question: what proportion of atmospheric co2 do you understand is human generated? Your comments indicate you think this is a larger proportion than the rather small one that actually pertains.
Reply
:iconappetitive-soul:
Appetitive-Soul Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015
No It wasn't. It seems like you want to go on believing liars.
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 25, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Why is the subject anything to do with "belief" if this is a scientific matter?
Reply
:iconappetitive-soul:
Appetitive-Soul Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2015
Its enough to create the hockey-stick
Reply
:iconcziiki:
cziiki Featured By Owner Jul 24, 2015  Hobbyist General Artist
Oops! That stick has been broken some years ago and revealed as an unsubtle bit of misleading propoganda.  Even proponents of climate change don't bring it up nowadays. 
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconcziiki: More from cziiki


More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
July 19, 2015
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
74,508
Favourites
1 (who?)
Comments
42