The whole basis for the claim of global warming comes from computer models and records dating from some 150 years ago - a mere blip in planetary climate history of 4.5 billion years during which there were successive periods of cooling, freezing of the northern hemisphere, then warming again, sometimes to much warmer temperatures than to…
The whole basis for the claim of global warming comes from computer models and records dating from some 150 years ago - a mere blip in planetary climate history of 4.5 billion years during which there were successive periods of cooling, freezing of the northern hemisphere, then warming again, sometimes to much warmer temperatures than today - all without the input of Man and his evil carbon dioxide, without which there would be no plants or life at all. What sense does such "science" make?
also add, consider that the oil and gas industry has spent millions to hire mostly petroleum geologist to spread misinformation about gobal warming, misinformation that if you have a robust science background it should be obvious, however lacking a robust science background then i can understand how it might sound convincing...
then also when i hear that a large hay field is going to be turned into a solar farm where it would be reasonable to assume that the ground is going to be hosed with roundup to control the vegetation, this only justified money wise by subsidies, then yes this makes me irate...
Like you, I'm also a graduate (ancient) of environmental science, though unlike you, not the human nutritional aspect of it - my area was ecology, physical geography, climate etc. , so I do share your concerns about the ravages to Nature by unprincipled polluting enterprises. However, I also find there's a tendency to confuse the issue of global warming alarmism with environmental issues. My personal view is that it's a reflection of modern man's hubristic belief in his own unlimited powers that results in the "belief" that he can control the climate. If one does have "a robust science background" as you say, the actual scientific facts make that hard to fathom.
Most of the "misinformation" about Man being responsible for causing climate change has been perpetrated for the past 50 years by those with a long-term political agenda, and supported by most of the MSM (which has recently become almost a monopolistic position with no alternative views allowed - just as with Covid). As time has passed and this "belief" has become increasingly engrained in the public mind, it's resulted in dissenting climate scientists being ousted from their positions, so that only those toeing the official line are allowed to survive professionally. Ring any bells???
ring bells, yes, i remember two climate scientists, one being run off due to being overly extreme doom and gloom, which spending some time studying over his arguments i found them overall compelling however i was bothered that he made the assumption that since we had created problems for ourselves that we currently have no solution for we were therefore doomed, like hello maybe we might figure out a solution as we go along, like why is this not a possibility...
but the other was for dissenting such that it gave support for the counter narrative, her issue was with the models, that the uncertainty was being under played and that key data collection needed for the model to be more robust was being ignored, left unfunded, yet she also made the statement that the models could be off both ways...
then the models from my understand are not robust enough to well predict when to expect effects, that there are variables within the model that must be assumed within a range of possible values, such that play with the assumptions, and you play with the outcomes...
however, we do have good certainty that we are increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that the planet is gaining heat energy, more incoming heat energy than outgoing heat energy, this which is counterbalanced/buffered by the earth's thermal mass which the oceans, ice caps/sheets, become an especially important aspect of...
then from here the uncertainty increases as far as how precisely this will affect the climate, that there are nonlinear feedback loops in the model which make predictions really difficult to forecast, and as far as belief, i don't share your belief, i more accept that mankind has been "blessed" with free will and that our task is to muster the maturity to handle it responsibility, that if we collectively desire to experience our own demise then so be it...
all this said i do feel this issue with gobal warning is a diversion, that there are other issue like roundup which if Zach Bush MD is correct about his concerns over multigeneration effects of roundup then we have way bigger issues ahead than gobal warming...
such that the bigger issue here is that with any legitimate stewardship concerns nefarious types and going to use them in nefarious ways for nefarious perceived gains, then the concerned scientist trying to bring legitimate issue into the public perception are faced with the need/desire of maintaining research funding where to ensure funding you need to sell a fear of concern to the public to get the funding...
within attempting to insure understanding Alexei, i am still pondering this aspect of your comment...
"view is that it's a reflection of modern man's hubristic belief in his own unlimited powers that results in the "belief" that he can control the climate"...
like from my perspective it becomes hubristic to believe that we cannot influence the climate in ways that might serve us poorly...
so, if you or others can further explain how mankind could/would be limited such that we could not cause a climate effect, i would be of interest...
You ask: "if you or other can further explain how mankind could/would be limited such that we could not cause a climate effect"
I did not say we could not cause a climate "effect" (whatever you might mean by that) but that I doubt we can or do "control" the world's climate, in other words, make the climate change. It's not disputed that we can cause small-scale local weather effects such as seeding the clouds with silver iodide to induce rain, or disperse hurricanes by various methods, or Andrew Yang's giant mirrors to reflect the sun's rays back into space or injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere also to prevent the sun's rays reaching earth. Some scientists have raised alarm at such ideas as having unpremeditated negative repercussions in other parts of the world. Indeed, huge amounts of sulphur dioxide were spewed into the atmosphere in 1815 by the largest volcanic eruption in history - Tambora in the Far East. It was considered one of the greatest environmental disasters to affect mankind, causing floods, droughts. starvation and disease for the next few years and the following year, 1816, was known as the Year Without a Summer as the skies were covered in a thick layer of volcanic dust shielding out the sun altogether, which was catastrophic for vegetation and food production.
Cloud seeding IS practised in a few countries locally but that is Weather, not Climate and is local, not global. As far as inducing rain is concerned, you must be aware of the water cycle and that the planet's water content is finite, such that changing its availability in one location may negatively impact another location down the road, so-to-speak.
So to answer your question, so far there are no viable, manageable methods of changing and controlling the earth's GLOBAL climate. Also, as a matter of interest, the increased amount of C02 is greening the planet. 35 years of satellite observations by NASA found the planet had greened by some 14%.
As for what IS responsible for changes in climate, alternative theories favor one or several factors depending on the scientist - the Solar cycles and sunspots, water vapor/cloud formation ( =78% of the atmosphere, whilst C02 = 0.04%), the changing tilt of the earth's axis relative to its orbital plane and earth's orbital eccentricity, Cosmic rays, the geomagnetic field, ocean currents, i.e. the Pacific Decadal Oscillations, volcanic activity ..... etc. In my view, a combination of these factors interrelating with each other are far more likely causes than C02 or methane, or the latest culprit, nitrogen.
The climate change agenda has nothing to do with controlling the climate, it's about controlling the people, about who controls money, wealth and resources and where that is relocated around the world, it's about globalist institutions taking control from nation states, making them subordinate to unelected plutocrats and corporations, it's all about our enslavement really and the end of democracy. Just look at who turns up to all the climate change conferences.
the whole basis for the claim, so based on how much due diligence, this is a complex topic that requires a serious effort to understand at a level necessary to be able to discuss/understand...
such that based on an extremely simplistic incomplete understanding of the science i would have no expectations that it would make sense...
okay, that i can appreciate, writing for me is a bit of a struggle which i hope with enough practice will improve over time...
and this was an attempting to clarify if the comment i was replying to was more of that i might label as a rote memorize and regurgitate comment...
like if i am going to spend the time struggling with finding the words to write a long reply then seems best to ensure that it has some chance to be understood...
The whole basis for the claim of global warming comes from computer models and records dating from some 150 years ago - a mere blip in planetary climate history of 4.5 billion years during which there were successive periods of cooling, freezing of the northern hemisphere, then warming again, sometimes to much warmer temperatures than today - all without the input of Man and his evil carbon dioxide, without which there would be no plants or life at all. What sense does such "science" make?
also add, consider that the oil and gas industry has spent millions to hire mostly petroleum geologist to spread misinformation about gobal warming, misinformation that if you have a robust science background it should be obvious, however lacking a robust science background then i can understand how it might sound convincing...
then also when i hear that a large hay field is going to be turned into a solar farm where it would be reasonable to assume that the ground is going to be hosed with roundup to control the vegetation, this only justified money wise by subsidies, then yes this makes me irate...
Like you, I'm also a graduate (ancient) of environmental science, though unlike you, not the human nutritional aspect of it - my area was ecology, physical geography, climate etc. , so I do share your concerns about the ravages to Nature by unprincipled polluting enterprises. However, I also find there's a tendency to confuse the issue of global warming alarmism with environmental issues. My personal view is that it's a reflection of modern man's hubristic belief in his own unlimited powers that results in the "belief" that he can control the climate. If one does have "a robust science background" as you say, the actual scientific facts make that hard to fathom.
Most of the "misinformation" about Man being responsible for causing climate change has been perpetrated for the past 50 years by those with a long-term political agenda, and supported by most of the MSM (which has recently become almost a monopolistic position with no alternative views allowed - just as with Covid). As time has passed and this "belief" has become increasingly engrained in the public mind, it's resulted in dissenting climate scientists being ousted from their positions, so that only those toeing the official line are allowed to survive professionally. Ring any bells???
ring bells, yes, i remember two climate scientists, one being run off due to being overly extreme doom and gloom, which spending some time studying over his arguments i found them overall compelling however i was bothered that he made the assumption that since we had created problems for ourselves that we currently have no solution for we were therefore doomed, like hello maybe we might figure out a solution as we go along, like why is this not a possibility...
but the other was for dissenting such that it gave support for the counter narrative, her issue was with the models, that the uncertainty was being under played and that key data collection needed for the model to be more robust was being ignored, left unfunded, yet she also made the statement that the models could be off both ways...
then the models from my understand are not robust enough to well predict when to expect effects, that there are variables within the model that must be assumed within a range of possible values, such that play with the assumptions, and you play with the outcomes...
however, we do have good certainty that we are increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, that the planet is gaining heat energy, more incoming heat energy than outgoing heat energy, this which is counterbalanced/buffered by the earth's thermal mass which the oceans, ice caps/sheets, become an especially important aspect of...
then from here the uncertainty increases as far as how precisely this will affect the climate, that there are nonlinear feedback loops in the model which make predictions really difficult to forecast, and as far as belief, i don't share your belief, i more accept that mankind has been "blessed" with free will and that our task is to muster the maturity to handle it responsibility, that if we collectively desire to experience our own demise then so be it...
all this said i do feel this issue with gobal warning is a diversion, that there are other issue like roundup which if Zach Bush MD is correct about his concerns over multigeneration effects of roundup then we have way bigger issues ahead than gobal warming...
such that the bigger issue here is that with any legitimate stewardship concerns nefarious types and going to use them in nefarious ways for nefarious perceived gains, then the concerned scientist trying to bring legitimate issue into the public perception are faced with the need/desire of maintaining research funding where to ensure funding you need to sell a fear of concern to the public to get the funding...
adding a follow-up comment...
within attempting to insure understanding Alexei, i am still pondering this aspect of your comment...
"view is that it's a reflection of modern man's hubristic belief in his own unlimited powers that results in the "belief" that he can control the climate"...
like from my perspective it becomes hubristic to believe that we cannot influence the climate in ways that might serve us poorly...
so, if you or others can further explain how mankind could/would be limited such that we could not cause a climate effect, i would be of interest...
In response --
You ask: "if you or other can further explain how mankind could/would be limited such that we could not cause a climate effect"
I did not say we could not cause a climate "effect" (whatever you might mean by that) but that I doubt we can or do "control" the world's climate, in other words, make the climate change. It's not disputed that we can cause small-scale local weather effects such as seeding the clouds with silver iodide to induce rain, or disperse hurricanes by various methods, or Andrew Yang's giant mirrors to reflect the sun's rays back into space or injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere also to prevent the sun's rays reaching earth. Some scientists have raised alarm at such ideas as having unpremeditated negative repercussions in other parts of the world. Indeed, huge amounts of sulphur dioxide were spewed into the atmosphere in 1815 by the largest volcanic eruption in history - Tambora in the Far East. It was considered one of the greatest environmental disasters to affect mankind, causing floods, droughts. starvation and disease for the next few years and the following year, 1816, was known as the Year Without a Summer as the skies were covered in a thick layer of volcanic dust shielding out the sun altogether, which was catastrophic for vegetation and food production.
Cloud seeding IS practised in a few countries locally but that is Weather, not Climate and is local, not global. As far as inducing rain is concerned, you must be aware of the water cycle and that the planet's water content is finite, such that changing its availability in one location may negatively impact another location down the road, so-to-speak.
So to answer your question, so far there are no viable, manageable methods of changing and controlling the earth's GLOBAL climate. Also, as a matter of interest, the increased amount of C02 is greening the planet. 35 years of satellite observations by NASA found the planet had greened by some 14%.
As for what IS responsible for changes in climate, alternative theories favor one or several factors depending on the scientist - the Solar cycles and sunspots, water vapor/cloud formation ( =78% of the atmosphere, whilst C02 = 0.04%), the changing tilt of the earth's axis relative to its orbital plane and earth's orbital eccentricity, Cosmic rays, the geomagnetic field, ocean currents, i.e. the Pacific Decadal Oscillations, volcanic activity ..... etc. In my view, a combination of these factors interrelating with each other are far more likely causes than C02 or methane, or the latest culprit, nitrogen.
The climate change agenda has nothing to do with controlling the climate, it's about controlling the people, about who controls money, wealth and resources and where that is relocated around the world, it's about globalist institutions taking control from nation states, making them subordinate to unelected plutocrats and corporations, it's all about our enslavement really and the end of democracy. Just look at who turns up to all the climate change conferences.
the whole basis for the claim, so based on how much due diligence, this is a complex topic that requires a serious effort to understand at a level necessary to be able to discuss/understand...
such that based on an extremely simplistic incomplete understanding of the science i would have no expectations that it would make sense...
You've managed to string together several words. Some of them even come close to being sentences. Congratulations.
so, you disagree and the best you can do is a petty insult, how creative...
I'm sorry, rylan. I can't disagree with a word salad that is incomprehensible.
okay, that i can appreciate, writing for me is a bit of a struggle which i hope with enough practice will improve over time...
and this was an attempting to clarify if the comment i was replying to was more of that i might label as a rote memorize and regurgitate comment...
like if i am going to spend the time struggling with finding the words to write a long reply then seems best to ensure that it has some chance to be understood...
Thanks for the clarification. I appreciate your efforts and suspect your newsletter will, in time, be one of the best on Substack.
Sincerity and self-awareness trumps clarity.