Yep.
much like Dump, that guy in the USA. Climate change and global warming are two separate but connected things. Right now, as in the past, a main influence of CLIMATE and temperature in the USA is the massive jet streams above the USA at 10,000 plus feet. Right now, the polar Arctic Vortex has broken from spinning above the North pole and as it does, this time and ever more increasingly it goes into Canada and then Northern USA and they see wildly cold temps 20 degrees Fahrenheit below normal.
When USA was burning in California and record lows in the East v Record highs in the West and California, Trump or Dump said the same. Stupid when the gulf stream that operates over the USA most of the time was in full effect, sucking heat from one side and depositing it on the other in a massive vortex, Overall I suspect the 10 degrees higher one side of the nation and 10 colder the other were Net ZERO IF NOT POSITIVE,.
Whilst not pretending to be an expert I have read far and wide and approached this after listening and reading most of the debunkers views. They are very very convincing, if NOT examined at all. Of the deniers, NONE have any peer reviewed papers, NOT a single one. SOME have zero qualifications in the field, MOST even the NOBEL prize winners have zero qualifications in any field associated with the issue.
Funding as Dark Knight was the next thing I looked at after reading the scientific reviews of their theories and found MOST, not all, but most were funded by extreme right wing billionaires and some directly by fossil fuel oil barons and coal barons. Koch brothers have a lot to answer for ....
I suppose I have read and gone through 1,000 papers and scientific studies and various papers both sides of this discussion. Its NOT a debate. Yes CO2 once was 5 times what it was now. That was 65 million or so years ago. Not much lived in the sea. there were not 7 billion soon to be 10 billion humans needing 50 million sq km of land just to feed themselves and get 20% of the protein they require from the sea.
Yes there were vast lush forests, but the change from the previous period around 260 million years ago ... where CO2 was even higher, BUT VIRTUALLY NO LIFE as we know it existed then, 99% of all species went extinct v 90% the 65 million years ago, easily and comprehensibly verified by fossil records, is an aside. NO life would exist at these extremes or little.
What one knows for sure is the last time, the 65 million year ago time was a period of 200,000 years where CO2 spiked twice, and it took that period for the temps to rise 10 degrees so YES it was warmer than even the 2100 level I suspect we are heading towards of 4 degrees. I stress two things here .... Again the need for virtually all arable land 50 million sq KM of land to feed us out of a total of 134 million sq KM and impacts of CO2 whilst supposedly good, and they are for plants, beyond where we are the crop yields drop significantly as we add co2 and temperature to the mix. On the other side, by 2100 likely we are close to 150% of the current population .... 10 billion v 7 billion. Likely and obviously will be a period of crop fails and poorer nations starving in massive ways never seen before. Again, covered in virtually all scientific papers of late.
Second is RATE of change and ignoring impacts well known, but if your NOT in a room, as I have had the pleasure of being in, with a volcanologist, a geologist or groups of them, them experts in 20 other fields, from weather to ICE formation and then ocean temperature experts then Ocean acidification ones and adding a BEST case and then a worst case .... the RATE of change in CO2 seen 65 million years ago and RATE of change of Temperature which by the way post 1980 via satellite and measured by 20 different groups has an at best 2 degree by 2100 if radical change happens which the current Plan is NOTHING but reducing the increasing output ,,, so it assures 4 degrees by 2100 ...
as I said, it took 200,000 years for it to occur a change of 8 degrees 65 million years ago, well we have done it in less than 200. I wish it wasn't so. I wish I could ignore it. Whilst I do understand the money driving some of the deniers, the science is chilling. In total I suppose there are about 50 different scientific people and expert groups in the the whole climate change issue. I only get to sit there, being to blunt for most, when they have prepared some forecasting model and they need someone to tell them the are mad.
Sadly. whilst so many times in the past, stupid and silly predictions of rising sea level in 1970 that by 2000 would be 20 meters prevailed, idiotic even then, I suspect a setup ... in 2018, with a computer that's well 30,000 times more powerful than the ones from 1980, its doesn't take even that to see, with a bloody 1980 PC or your mobile phone, when say CH4 is 33% more than 1980 and CO2 is 25% MORE and the ocean is 25% MORE acidic remembering its a logarithmic scale, the future is NOT too hard to see.
Or then again, for some, for most, who cares. Massive sea rise will only occur when ANTARCTIC ide sheets melt totally and 3,000 meters of ice is added to the mix, not likely pre 2100. Assured mind you by 2200. A mere 180 years away. ASSURED, artic ice, NASA satellite has been watching with extreme precision since 1980, the North pole is likely to be ice free within 20 years in summer, and likely even winter by 2055-60. Scary since the end of the last event was the freezing and carbon capture of a lot of CO2, the ARTIC has a massive amount of captured organic material and Methane which if released in a short space, say 50-100 years totals all the fossil fuels released to date. Again, likely in the extreme no matter what we do.
Cambridge guys the leaders in this issue ARTIC ice and the Permafrost stuff, but to deny, its occurring, I suppose humanity will act, too late and it will take one of the almost assured crop fails of several years via climate change and droughts or extreme floods in a large population nation, or a few over the space of a few years, and we see, the world .... a mass starvation event with deaths likely 100 million if not a billion by 2100. By then, sadly as we spit out 35 billion tons of CO2 MORE than the earth can handle which is the other 25 billion that it can and does recycle naturally ... more and more changes will occur.
Yep, climate is always changing. But, well, if you like acid rain and 250 degrees as Stephen called for in around 400 years, go right ahead. To stop it, well, it will require all of humanity and a change that will NOT COST MUCH ... less than 2% of GDP if not 1% .... but stop fossil fuels and capture some CO2 and reverse some of the crap. Stephen now departed of course is Stephen Hawkins, whilst NOT a climate expert and I did NOT agree with a lot of his views on how we got there, I tend NOT to ignore people a lot lot smarter than me without a lot of research and I do so with the utmost respect and knowledge I am the dummy in the corner ina room full of very smart people.
Bottom line, is that GREEN energy and its economics, another reason they have me there .... IS CHEAPER than fossil fuel burning options. This equation is forever changing with issues behind most green forms of energy and lack of storage, a MIX of HYDRO and various other forms WORKS and has been working for some time in most EU nations. Sure some of its NUCLEAR and whilst not economical an more due to massive cost of new reactors and political stuff, this MIX and new cheaper battery storage is advancing in leaps and bounds along with some very good ocean types that perform 24/7 and some that can be used as backup for when say wind and other forms such as PV and solar thermal are not possible.
This sadly would require massive amounts of NEWLY available due to new drilling techniques ... again why they let me in the door ... via fracking and even fracking old oil fields and fields with low permeability the world reserves of oil post 2005 have in fact exploded. That is IF .... we chose to burn them. Massive very vested interests and stability of many economies depend on this ....
In the end, I get depressed like most on top of this issue. I doubt we stop global warming and CO2 growth pre 2050. As such by 2100 top end is an at best ... 4 degrees and any ability to do anything either costs too much or its in fact too late for the oceans and humanity as we know it.
I live in hope but even allowing for 50 fold increases from here in some of the CO2 technologies to capture and recycle, the window, without a massive reduction by 2050 is virtually closed EVEN allowing for some technologies to expand to 50 fold current efficiency. Of course maybe cold fusion is invented and we can via brute force remove CO2 using all the energy put into breaking it apart to take CH4 to CO2 and H2O or more complex ones. But hoping, or even wishing for it, is a fools game when faced with technical extinction v a maybe.