Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Fred Harvey]

Statement # 5

So how are we doing? Are there more revisions CT'ers would like to put forward for Statement # 5 (And take a chance of a landslide of criticism)?

Bob A[/SIZE]

Nice to see a bit of humor on here!

[Bob Armstrong]

Canadian Wildfires

Canadian Climate Activist:

Big Oil Is Fueling Fires. We Must Stop Funding New Fossil Fuel Pipelines.

Allegation: Big Oil is an "arsonist".......it may not be physically starting fires, BUT it produces 86% of the greenhouse gases creating the impervious atmospheric canopy. We then get the negative climate change consequences, drought and heat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp6nJMd-ivs

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

Canadian Wildfires

Canadian Climate Activist:

Big Oil Is Fueling Fires. We Must Stop Funding New Fossil Fuel Pipelines.

Allegation: Big Oil is an "arsonist".......it may not be physically starting fires, BUT it produces 86% of the greenhouse gases creating the impervious atmospheric canopy. We then get the negative climate change consequences, drought and heat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp6nJMd-ivs

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

BUT it produces 86% of the greenhouse gases creating the impervious atmospheric canopy

Despite undeniable data that the temp goes up .5 degrees every century and CO2 has nothing to do with it, you just blab on and on like a broken record. You don't even listen to videos I post that explain what this nonsense you parrot is about and offer lame excuses why you don't listen to said video presentations and continually promise that you will.

Divorcing the CCP-controlled WEF from the debate about climate change would be like divorcing the Nazis from their genocide of the Jews and, instead
debating the Nazi pseudoscience propaganda rationalization for the genocide that Jews somehow carry diseases and must be eradicated and then debating the nuances of these ridiculous theories of Jewish disease transmission.

[Bob Armstrong]

ChessTalk




Negative Anthropogenic Climate Change (NACC) Thread

(Started: 21/12/9)

Overview & Update

[Note: There has been significant editorial revision for this edition of our general prototype post.]


1. Weekly Stats:

Week # 26 (23/6/26 – 23/7/2: 7 days)

Views
.....................................................2023 Average.... 2022 Average
Last Week's......Prior Week's........Views/Day..........Views/Day
Views/Day........Views/Day.............(26 wks.)___________

........52...................18.........................29.....................44

Responses (Posts)

......................................................2023 Average.........2022 Average

....Last Week's.....Prior Week's......Responses/Day......Responses/Day

Responses/Day....Resp./Day............ (26 wks.)__________________

.............6.......................1........................2............................5.


Analysis of Last Week's Stats

Last week there was a landslide of responses daily (6 per day). These stats far outstrip those of the 2023 average so far. Of course, this many responses drew the related huge number of views.

There remains here, a steady interest in the critical issue of climate change, regardless of the perspective on the issue.

Climate Change Thread “Responses”

There are lots of climate change articles out there, both on negative anthropogenic climate change, and negative natural climate change.

This thread encourages CT'ers on all sides to re-post here, as responses, the climate change posts of interest they see elsewhere. Overall, ChessTalker's have been quite active here in posting “responses” and it seems that chessplayers across Canada are wanting information on climate change, a challenge unlike any our species has ever faced before.

Note:

1. The goal of this thread is not to woodshed an opposing view into submission. Every position is entitled to post as it sees fit, regardless of the kind of, and amount of, postings by other positions. What is wanted is serious consideration of all posts........then you decide.
2. I personally, as the thread originator, am trying to post a new response at least every 2^nd day, but admit my busy schedule means I am sometimes falling short on this. So it is great that a number of other CT'ers are posting responses here somewhat regularly.

2. The Anthropogenicist Position

The Pressing Climate Change Issue

The core issue:

Building a sense of URGENCY on this issue in society. We must realize that we cannot kick it down the road any longer!

The public is aware of the climate change issue.......

BUT.....

climate activists must find strategies to “AWAKEN” the public to the “urgency”.

It is expected, though somewhat disheartening, to see other negative issues of the day climb immediately to the top of the public's agenda, with climate change being sometimes substantially downgraded in importance. We will all pay for this.........

The Time Line

Nature's Tipping point is estimated to be, on current trajectory, only 9 years away (Around Jan. 1, 2031). Capping the temperature rise at only 1.5 degrees Celsius (the original international target) is now impossible (UN Climate Change Panel's most recent report in March, 2023). Their position is that the problem at this time is mostly due to human activity, and that radical change in our method of living is the only way to avoid this rising, very problematic, temperature. UNCCP noted that current government deadlines were totally insufficient to solve the problem. CO 2 must be capped by 2025 since it is the main contributor to the problem! Methane is another greenhouse gas of concern, with some maintaining it contributes more to the problem than CO2. The extent of involvement in the greenhouse effect of water vapour is somewhat controversial.

Also, it has now become necessary to add in the process of CO 2 “removal”, along with “eliminating” the spewing of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere by human activity.

Our window of opportunity is fast closing.

The Large Picture Solutions

Can we come up with at least one viable suggestion of some impressive, radical thing that might wake up the public, that we could then put out there to other concerned climate activists?


3. The Naturalists' Position

Negative “Natural” Climate Change

This thread has had a number of CT'ers arguing for Natural Climate Change, and arguing that the human economic activity contribution to negative climate change is negligible. We are just in one of Nature's long warming cycles.

We would encourage everyone to consider the materials being presented, and then see whether they in any way change your perspective, if you are an adherent of negative Anthropogenic climate change. Whether you change anything, or not, your assessment of the evidence would be most welcome in this thread.


4. Negative Climate Change: The Conversation Project

All sides have been trying to come up with accurate statements on climate change that will gain general acceptance. We have reached now 5 possible STATEMENTS (See below).

All are a work-in-progress, though for some, proposed revisions have now stopped. So, for this forum, a number of the earlier statements are now “generally accepted”.

(Note: One comment on each of the Statements 1-4 is still outstanding – see below. These may lead to some revision.)

"Commonly Accepted Statements on Negative Climate Change (Layman's Terms)"

(Following a "Conversation Format" protocol)

Statement # 1

Solar Activity is the main driver of climate change". It is heat from the sun that is the "source" of the problem.

(Outstanding Comments: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 1, you are presuming there is a "problem." That is not established yet.")

Statement # 2

Earth's mean temperature is now rising, has been for some time, and will likely continue to rise for some time in the future.

(Outstanding Comments: Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 2. - Uk Met Observatory is the only source of direct thermometer data going back over 300 years. The average rate is .5 degrees every 100 Years.")

Statement # 3

From 1650 (200 years before the Industrial Revolution [Started: 1850]; 1650 is earliest global temperature recording), the Earth's mean temperature has been rising naturally (Earth has been in a natural warming cycle; it has gone through various cooling and warming cycles before this current warming one). There is surface temperature data for the period 1650 to 1850, and beyond, from the records of the UK Meteorological Observatory. Some propose that they are sufficient to use to analyze our increasing temperature problem.

(Outstanding Comments:Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Bob, concerning statement 3. Given that heart of the early Industrial Revolution started in the UK, where manmade CO2 emissions were significant, it is an excellent platform to analyze the data. Again, no agreement yet about whether there is a problem.")

Statement # 4

For 650,000 years, CO2 in Earth's atmosphere never rose beyond 300 parts per million (to 1949). In 1950, 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution [1850], the percentage of the air/atmosphere that is CO2 had spiked dramatically to 380 parts per million. Since 1950, we have now had another 75 years of the Industrial Revolution. We are seeking a source for the 2023 count for CO2 parts per million.
[Note: The significance of CO2, and the Industrial Revolution, as factors in negative climate change is hotly debated. But it is necessary to include a factual finding on these two items, to have some common factual statement concerning them, for future Statements & debate.]

(Outstanding Comments:Sid Belzberg - Post # 1296 - "Concerning statement 4, what is the source of your data and methodology concerning Co2 concentrations PPM in the atmosphere for the last 650,000 years? The data you refer to in statement 3 shows that rate of temp. Increase is a modest (.5 degrees per century) before and after manmade CO2 emissions.)

Statement # 5

It is essential to have alternate sources of energy; it is good that this transition is now underway; our options include renewables (solar panels, tidal, water turbines, windmills) and nuclear. Traditionally used fossil fuels, including coal, are finite, though more plentiful than commonly thought.


5. CT'ers Immediate Task

CT'ers of all stripes are now invited to propose amended statements, for the majority to choose between. You can also just post confirmation that you believe the particular statement to be true.

Take a hand at drafting "critical scientific statements" ! “

6. CT'ers' Local Action: Promotion of the Conversation on Climate Change

You can do something! Promote the discussion on Climate Change!

a. When you like one of this thread's links on an aspect of climate change, spread the news by posting it to your social media accounts and other Websites/Discussion Boards you participate in!

b. You can also re-post the tentative STATEMENTS above.

~ Bob A. (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

"As a warming Earth simmered into worrisome new territory this week, scientists said the unofficial records being set for average planetary temperature were a clear sign of how pollutants released by humans are warming their environment. But the heat is also just one way the planet is telling us something is gravely wrong, they said.

“Heat sets the pace of our climate in so many ways ... it’s never just the heat,” said Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Brown University.

Dying coral reefs, more intense Nor’easters and the wildfire smoke that has choked much of North America this summer are among the many other signals of climate distress."


https://apnews.com/article/global-he...ternoon%20Wire

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Sid Belzberg]

"As a warming Earth simmered into worrisome new territory this week, scientists said the unofficial records being set for average planetary temperature were a clear sign of how pollutants released by humans are warming their environment. But the heat is also just one way the planet is telling us something is gravely wrong, they said.

“Heat sets the pace of our climate in so many ways ... it’s never just the heat,” said Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Brown University.

Dying coral reefs, more intense Nor’easters and the wildfire smoke that has choked much of North America this summer are among the many other signals of climate distress."


https://apnews.com/article/global-he...ternoon%20Wire

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

]Dying coral reefs, more intense Nor’easters and the wildfire smoke that has choked much of North America this summer are among the many other signals of climate

We covered the wildfires already Bob and proved Arson causes those. Here is the truth about the Great Barrier Reef that is heavily referenced. You do not know the difference between science and pseudoscience. You are technically illiterate; worst of all, you don't read posts others put here to edify you. You would not be posting about climate change causing wildfires when they are caused by arson if you ever bothered reading anything, anyone posts here.

FYI regarding "dying coral reefs"

With An Increase In Coral Cover, The Great Barrier Reef Is Thriving


Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is in great condition.

---

By Peter Ridd

4 min. read
View original

---

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is in great condition. But the legacy media aren’t reporting this good news.

The GBR is made up of approximately 3,000 reefs covering an area nearly the size of California off Australia’s eastern coast. The condition of its coral is frequently referenced as an indicator of the reef’s health, regularly in an attempt to connect it with the supposed damage global warming is doing to the planet.

The reef now has more coral than at any other time since records began in 1986, according to the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). There is roughly 20% more coral on the GBR than last year, which itself equaled a previous record year. All three major regions of the reef now have excellent coral cover and AIMS states that two regions are at record breaking high levels.

As of the latest 2022 survey of the GBR, coral covered 34% of the seabed, double the lowest coverage recorded in 2012. There are many types of ecosystems on reefs other than coral — and 34% is a remarkably high number.

This coral health exists despite four supposedly ‘massively destructive’ and unprecedented bleaching events striking parts of the reef since 2016 — all allegedly due to climate change. Coral reefs typically take five to 10 years to recover from major damage, so how can the Great Barrier Reef be enjoying such good health this soon? Could reef-science institutions have exaggerated the damage in the first place to advance the global warming narrative? Perhaps.

However, 36 years of AIMS data show that large amounts of coral occasionally die — usually from cyclones, hot-water bleaching, or starfish plagues — but that recovery is often fast. For example, the Cooktown region suffered moderate coral loss after a 2016 bleaching event but recovered by 2021. By far, the biggest loss of coral was after Cyclone Hamish smashed the southern half of the reef in 2009. Recovery was largely complete by 2016.

These marine events – which have been going on for millennia – are akin to terrestrial bushfires from which the land quickly recuperates. However, untrustworthy institutions of science and climate alarmists use them to foster hysteria over a climate that has vacillated between warmth and cold for millions upon millions of years.

These same purveyors of hyperbole then ignore or downplay news of the reef’s convalescence. For example, last year’s good news of coral coverage matching previous records was dismissed by claims that only the fast-growing coral had recovered. That’s poppycock. It is these species — staghorn and plate coral — that are most delicate and susceptible to damage and most obvious in their recovery.

The exceptional news this year is that almost every region of the reef is doing extremely well. For so much of the reef’s coral to be this healthy at the same time is very unusual. Normally, a large chunk of the reef is recovering from a major cyclone which drags down the average. So when the reef’s overall coverage is at today’s level of more than 30% of the area, the GBR’s health is indeed good.

This overall health is only apparent if the condition of the entire reef is reported. For whatever reason, in 2017 AIMS stopped averaging regional data to provide a composite view of the reef’s condition. I had to do that calculation for recent years myself to get a complete picture. Is this another instance of obscuring positive data?

Those who play down news of exceptional reef health should consider the unnecessary emotional damage being inflicted on children worried about their future. Elementary school students in America speak of their premature demise because of a faux climate emergency. A 2019 Australian survey reported that “around half of residents, tourists and tourist operators surveyed, and almost one quarter of fishers, report significant Reef Grief.”

The fact is the Great Barrier Reef is brilliantly thriving. Church bells should be ringing. People should be celebrating. We will always worry about the GBR because it is precious. But there are more pressing matters than coral that has been waxing and waning and a climate that has been warming and cooling for eons.

Dr. Peter Ridd — a geophysicist, physical oceanographer and inventor — has worked on the Great Barrier Reef since 1984 and has written over 100 scientific publications. Now an adjunct fellow at The Institute of Public Affairs, he was fired in 2018 from teaching at Australia’s James Cook University after criticizing exaggerations about reef damage.

[Dilip Panjwani]

"

the wildfire smoke that has choked much of North America this summer...

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

The powers that be do not mind turning the economy topsy-turvy in preventing you from driving, but do not want to spend a few dollars putting out the wildfires ??

[Bob Armstrong]

I have provided evidence that wildfires are not due mainly to deliberate arson.

Others have posted articles and videos claiming that ALL Canada's recent wildfires are by deliberate arson (And most through the agency of arsonists paid by, effectively, the New World Order covert power).

CT'ers can decide.

Bob A

[Sid Belzberg]

I have provided evidence that wildfires are not due mainly to deliberate arson.

Others have posted articles and videos claiming that ALL Canada's recent wildfires are by deliberate arson (And most through the agency of arsonists paid by, effectively, the New World Order covert power).

CT'ers can decide.

Bob A

Really???? Just like the nonsensical claims about the coral reefs?

[Dilip Panjwani]

.

ALL ... not due mainly to deliberate arson



Bob A

You may be right about not ALL, but several have been lit by active arsonists, and passive arsonists are refusing to put several out...

[Brad Thomson]

Would this many fires set by arsonists have burned this prolifically 50 or 60 years ago? And proving arson would not disprove man-made climate change. This is a typical obfuscation.

[Sid Belzberg]

Would this many fires set by arsonists have burned this prolifically 50 or 60 years ago? And proving arson would not disprove man-made climate change. This is a typical obfuscation.

Yet another steaming pile of horseshit courtesy of Brad, who never reads the thread before posting his unsubstantiated statements.

https://forum.chesstalk.com/forum/ch...516#post227516

Record Breaking Wildfires "prolifically burning" From The Past

In the early part of the twentieth century, wildfires were indeed record-breaking with 1910: Known as the "Big Blowup" or the "Great Fire of 1910," this year saw massive wildfires across several western states, particularly Idaho, Montana, and Washington. It is considered one of the largest wildfire events in U.S. history.

1. 1933: This year experienced severe wildfires across multiple states, including California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The "Tillamook Burn" in Oregon lasted for several years and was one of the most significant fire events.
2. 1947: Known as the "Great Fires of 1947," this year saw numerous fires across the Northeastern United States, particularly in Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. These fires destroyed thousands of acres of forestland and caused significant damage.
3. 1988: This year witnessed an extensive wildfire season in the western United States, with particularly severe fires in Yellowstone National Park. The park experienced a series of large fires that burned for several months and gained significant media attention.
4. 2000: 2000 saw an active wildfire season, primarily in the Western United States. States like Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon experienced significant fires, resulting in widespread destruction.
5. 1910 "Big Blow Up massive wildfires across several western states, particularly Idaho, Montana, and Washington. It is considered one of the largest wildfire events in U.S. history.

As in the graph I provided you in the previous link that you still have not looked at, the Canadian fires were not record-breaking either.

The use of firelines became more formalized and systematic in the early twentieth century as fire management practices evolved. After the significant wildfires in 1910, which I mentioned earlier, there was a greater emphasis on fire suppression and prevention efforts in the United States. None of it had anything to do with climate change!

[Brad Thomson]

Sid, please keep in mind that I do not claim to know the truth, and remain agnostic on the question. I challenge 'evidence' on both sides of the debate. I have done the same with respect to COVID. This is how philosophers tend to operate, as opposed to scientists and know-it-alls.

[Brad Thomson]

Yet another steaming pile of horseshit

Sid, you keep repeating this. Ronald Reagan speculated that duck flatulence was the cause of acid rain, are you advocating a similar theory, or do you simply have a fetish?

[Bob Armstrong]

Canadian Wildfires

"Wildfire season is 10 times worse than normal, will burn for months: officials"

https://montrealgazette.com/news/que...G_HeadlineNews

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)