Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Even in the late 1950's when I worked with nukes, there were several safety features that prevented "accidents." One safety feature I thought were really genius! It really assured any accidents of a full nuclear bomb effect from happening.

That's pretty damned frightening.

Question: Is global warming a normal cycle or man-made? Here's one answer: The Earth’s natural climate cycle

Over the last 800,000 years, there have been natural cycles in the Earth’s climate. There have been ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. After the last ice age 20,000 years ago, average global temperature rose by about 3°C to 8°C, over a period of about 10,000 years.

We can link the rises in temperature over the last 200 years to rises in atmospheric CO2 levels. Rises in temperature are now well above the natural cycle of the last 800,000 years.

From one perspective, you can classify causes as either natural or man-made; but from another perspective there is only sunlight and all the various ways that the energy is absorbed/stored and/or re-emitted to go someplace else.

So if you have a forest, sun shines on the tree canopy and they reflect most of it as green light, but they also absorb some and allow some to filter down through the canopy where it gets absorbed by other plants.

Then if you clear the forest and turn it into farms, the energy characteristics of the land changes. Energy and CO2 aren't being absorbed/stored as much as with (growing) hardwood. They are being absorbed and stored as crops, which are being harvested and consumed re-releasing the energy and carbon that was briefly stored up in them.

Now if you develop the farmland into paved cities and suburbs, the pavement and buildings are not even going to absorb and store any energy and carbon whatsoever, so that carbon and energy that used to get absorbed and stored by that soil when it was forest (or even farmland) is now kept as CO2 and latent heat in the atmosphere.

What's more, all the cars and other machines, including the factories that produce stuff to buy and carry in the cars and trucks, as well as the ships that sail between ports carrying stuff from the factories and fuels and other raw materials, as well as the heaters and air-conditioners and other appliances/machines running in the buildings; are all running on fuel that's taken out of the ground, where it sedimented to store carbon and energy for underground processes.

So now you're moving carbon and energy from underground where it's solid or liquid form and you're converting into gas form in the atmosphere.

So all those changes to the natural cycles of carbon, energy, water, soil, etc. all have effects on climate. You can't really say that climate is changed by EITHER natural OR man-made causes, because humans work with natural resources to procure industrial societies.

E.g. if humans take solid and liquid carbon/energy out of the ground and convert it into CO2 and heat, then nature is going to take that CO2 gas and heat and do what she does with those. The heat is going to cause more water to evaporate while the CO2 is going to make it more difficult for the energy to radiate out of the atmosphere. It's all 'natural mechanics,' but human activities have changed how the land functions and how carbon/energy sediments and functions in the long-term geological climate that's going on underground.

All well and good, but stating facts will not solve the problems. When will humans quit harming our own atmosphere? Not any time soon.

It's only frightening if you assume that the data is accurate and has not been cheery-picked.

I personally make no such assumption.

Yes, we know your contention that the data are inaccurate and cherry picked springs from your specious generalization from one article that was not published whose conclusion turned out to ve wrong, which you maintained wrongly was evidence of supression of inconvenient data, and speciously generalized unwarrantedly covered all research in all fields for a century and a half, and ignored the abundant physical evidence that AGW is real and is happening. Fortunately the world
s scientific bodies and national governments do not similarly have their heads in the sand.

The article was not wrong, and it was suppressed.

Cherry-picked data is not evidence of anything at all. It is rightfully ignored.

So, I'm not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon. Sorry.

The only reason humans are able to do harm is either by avoiding/ignoring facts or by intentionally continuing to do harm after fully grasping how they are doing so.

Greta Thunberg said it as follows:

There are articles that suggest she's blaming Trump, and she may think that way, but I don't see it as being about Trump or any other government official, corporate CEO, or other powerful positions. It comes down to what every individual does in everything they do, how they invest their money, how their money-managers invest their money, and how the managers of other investments their money-managers invest money.

Whether it's at work or during free time, we are all cooperating to make things happen that are failing to rectify climate degeneracy, and the question is why we're not more committed to stopping the things that are bad for climate and/or working to develop sustainable things to replace them.

I've just read an interesting article on other explanations for global warming.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/dr-gottschalks-world-war-ii-heat-bump-did-the-war-contribute-to-air-pollution-and-global-warming/5690184

Indeed, this Canadian conspiracy theory website offers a lot of interesting fun.

That's your comment to the material you've just read? Did you mean to say that the author is a conspiracy theorist?

Here's something that will more aptly cater to your sensibilities.

http://www.nuclearplanet.com/ac1.pdf

It wS wrong. Sno you.wpack was melting inline with agw in the cascades as subseque t research showed. Itsscience didnt hold up. Hardly hysteriia. A hard eyed look at how the world is actually changing and how we had better starf adapting if we dont want to get fucked over by oour own denialism like you.

That is incorrect. The article was correct, and its science held up. It was suppressed because the facts in the article contradicted the leftist narrative.

This end of the world hysteria is very much hysteria.

still on that snowpack "truncated data stream that denialists use to support their views?""

When science is based on biased and skewed data, that science lacks credibility.

The research drew an incorrect conclusion, smy cite wed. I know you hate facts that disagree with your rightist ideology, but those are the facts.. No suppression, but a scientific disagreement, snd you lost.And agsin, the science disagreed with you since Svanre Arrhenius discovered that CO2 trspped heat in the 19th century, and the smount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been known to be increasing for the bstter part of a century, as was established well before the climate was getting warmer, sell before there were any people diagnosing the situation as glbal warming/climate change, which kind of makes it difficult to say people are deliberately biasing their research in suppoe=rt of something they didn't even know existed yet. You are once again trying to maintain that one set of data with which you disagree is representative of a whole field, which it clearly is not. Again unproved illogical generalix=zation n your art.

yeah, oralloy the great truncator is.

Global warming is man-made, of course. Everybody knows that by now.