Global Warming?

[garyboy]

as Jak says, measuring climate change is complex, and i have been pondering what the causes and effects of small changes are.

I would say that `climate change` should be more accurately defined as `climate disruption`, as i don't think there is so much a global heating as a global disruption, which in the short term means a general heating. But the Earth will respond, biologically and physically, and could even become cooler in future years (and enter the ice age predicted in my youth?). Scientists make mistakes on even simple predictions of global heating: we could be inadvertently increasing disruption by trying to counteract recent climate and weather trends?

Planting trees to counteract human activity, reduction of human populations, increasing the natural plankton and algae in the oceans which have been decimated by humans etc etc are all good stuff .. but on their own is not enough to slow down present trends. The jet stream has got more wobbly and less strong, even recently .. but what are the causes? .. is it just human effects? .. or are there more galacatic forces at play?....do we need the well-overdue mass volcanic eruptions to replenish air gasses? and reduce the human population? .. as sober thought ... so many variables ... I was just wondering what people on here are thinking .. perhaps i have posted on the wrong forum lol.

[johnnyboxer]

We need to sell our polluting motorcycles, go for electric scooters

Braaap

[garyboy]

I totally agree JB .. in the interests of saving the planet and getting a medal for services to humanity, I swapped my crf250L for a Ebike.


I still got the Honda NC750, but that is low revving and quiet lol

[daveuprite]

... I was just wondering what people on here are thinking .. perhaps i have posted on the wrong forum lol.

You can post what you want where you want, Gary. And you have. But don't be surprised or offended if you post nonsense when people call it nonsense. These are your crazy posts - you need to own them. You seem to feel insulted when the outlandishness of your 'beliefs' are pointed out to you. Personally if I say something ridiculous I expect to be ridiculed. If you're just looking for validation and for others to agree with you there are loads of social media sites where you can commune with like minds. But regardless of all that, I never post out of malice or deliberately to upset people, so please never take anything personally. If I think what you say is fruitloop it doesn't follow that that means I dislike you or anything like that. Actually I find it quite endearing, sometimes enjoyable, and I'm really glad you're a regular part of this forum.

Anyway, total and complete change of subject: I just came across this video of an artist painting a portrait from blank to finish, and I thought of you and your artistic efforts. I only wish I could paint like this - just one brush size throughout. It's great to see how it develops from nothing:

[garyboy]

Was going to go out on the bike today, but just too cold for my old bones ... roll on that promised IceAge I says .. let's get it over and done eh?

Trouble is, all the big people will die out, as well as the big beasts of commerce and industry. At least the sale of knobbly tyres should provide a good living for some.

[garyboy]

Welll ll .. a few years later .. 'scientists ' are starting to come around to a sensible viewpoint on the tiny tiny effects of CO2 in the climate.

Net Zero my Asss.

See.. I'm not a conspiracy theorist .. more a Conspiry fact exponent.

.
.
.
The Climate Change Party

The CO2 Climate Narrative Collapses Under Basic Physics
For years, we’ve been told that CO2—a trace gas at just 0.04% of the atmosphere—controls Earth’s climate. But a new study in Science of Climate Change exposes the flaw: The data doesn’t add up.
- 93% of warming is in the oceans, yet their temperatures jump erratically, ignoring CO2’s steady rise.
- 1963–70: Cooling. 1970–80: Warming. Post-2000: Stability. Why? Natural solar cycles, clouds, and aerosols—not CO2.
- Satellite and ARGO data confirm: Earth warms when solar input increases. Not because of a trace gas.
The IPCC’s models overstate CO2’s role while ignoring the sun’s dominance. Even the remaining 25% of warming is uncertain—cleaner air (fewer aerosols) means fewer clouds, which also warms the planet.
"As redistribution of “heat in the pipeline” will not change the total OHC, roughly ¾ of the observed positive trend in OHC must at least be attributed to rising solar input. The oceans act in this way as our climate system’s thermal buffer. It will mitigate warming during periods of increased solar input and dampen cooling when solar input declines, underscoring its critical role in Earth's climate stability"
Conclusion: CO2’s impact is minimal. Climate sensitivity is overestimated. No apocalypse—just natural variability.
Taxing people in the belief that the Government will stop climate Change is criminal fraud.
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/.../ ... .3-Huijser...

[Magnusson]

0.04%? Not during your lifetime.

graph4.jpg (30.91 KiB) Viewed 1105 times

I still have to admire people who get their knowledge from unconventional sources.

Screenshot_20251029-222115_Brave.jpg (131.1 KiB) Viewed 1103 times

[garyboy]

https://www.google.com/search?q=greenpe ... e&ie=UTF-8




greenpeace founder on co2


Patrick Moore, who identifies as a co-founder of Greenpeace, holds views on CO2 that are contrary to the scientific consensus. He claims that increased atmospheric CO2 is beneficial for plant life and that there is no proof that human emissions cause global warming, suggesting that any resulting temperature increase would be positive for the planet. Greenpeace has distanced itself from his views, stating that he left the organization decades ago and that his current positions do not reflect the organization's own.
On CO2's benefits: Moore argues that carbon dioxide is a "building block of life" and that more of it in the atmosphere would be beneficial for plants.
On climate change: He has denied that human activity is causing global warming.
On potential temperature increases: He has stated that a warmer climate would be beneficial to life on Earth.
On scientific consensus: Moore's views are in opposition to the established scientific consensus on climate change.
Greenpeace's stance: The organization has publicly stated that Moore left the group in 1986 and that his current views, including those on climate change, are not those of Greenpeace.

[rlkat]

I don't care. We're such a horrible species. Bring on the reset and see if a different organism can do a better job. Meteorite. Nuclear war. 28 Days Later rage virus (we're nearly there). Whatever happens, this planet is going to get vaporised by an expanding, dying sun at some point.

Almost forgot.... Merry Christmas.

[garyboy]

Yeah ... at my age, I suddenly realised that i'm Old.
That was only a few weeks ago .. saw my self walking, on camera.
Imediately reverted to `don't give a fuck` mode, the end is nigh, just a few years or so left.

Closed into my own little bubble ... doing old-people stuff .. like gardening, feeding the ickle birds, smiling at little children, forgiving all (well some) of the bastards wot dun me wrong.

Not looked at the bikes .... far too dangerous. Too wet out, too cold ... staying by the warm, except out all day grovelling in the wet cold mud, doing planting for spring.

Its good to know that cockroaches will survive the Russian nukes ... but I hope they don't take over from our esteemed place in the world.
I'd like to see octopusses take over .. they sposed to be intelligent, and can turn their hand to anything, more so than us humans.
I like seahorses too ... so Cute ... but that's assuming it will be a water world .. or they both creatures would need inverted goldfish bowls over their heads.

Looking forward to it, actually.



o forgot ..... happy new year