I assume it refers to the acceleration of climate change due to mankind's activities, and the possible implications of this; and what can be done to alleviate and prepare for the consequential impacts it will have on our planet (including ourselves).

Did they choose him for this because an iceberg killed him?

Exactly. Stupid Governments that have been invading Iraq and Afganistan for their supplies of hydroelectric power and solar panels, never showing ANY support for any industries that disagree with the theory of global warming. And stupid individuals like DiCaprio, flying around in his jet all the time, causing global warming all by himself.

Climate change? The 400-800 years long, natural weather cycle?
Or is it a movie about introducing more taxes and justifying them somehow?

Looks interesting. Nice find, heat :stuck_out_tongue:

Did they choose him for this because an iceberg killed him?

Climate change? The 400-800 years long, natural weather cycle?
Or is it a movie about introducing more taxes and justifying them somehow?

A film about how successive governments have denied funding for ALL scientists who say it isn't true, and all the models such as the hockey stick which have gone disastrously wrong. Or the influence certain hugely wealthy fund managers have had on policy.

Then perhaps we can take a took at the breath taking hypocrisy of men like DiCaprio and Al Gore who lecture us all about carbon footprints etc and arrive and leave by private jet!

it's the "yer da" types who don't believe in climate change and think it's a conspiracy theory

Exactly. Stupid Governments that have been invading Iraq and Afganistan for their supplies of hydroelectric power and solar panels, never showing ANY support for any industries that disagree with the theory of global warming. And stupid individuals like DiCaprio, flying around in his jet all the time, causing global warming all by himself.

He tends to keep going on about climate change allover his social media profiles as of late. He actually may be trying to make a difference. Or maybe perhaps when you've got everything, there's very little else to do. Who knows. Or cares?

75% of his Oscar winning speech was about climate change

The climate constantly changes.

looks good, so nice find op

The pattern of climate change acceleration is true to that of the previous xx million years, as shown in isotope cores taken from the antarctic. To think we alone are causing it is a little like God complex.
That said, we are knackering the planet in a thousand different ways, so cynicism aside, drives for cleaner technologies & pollution cut back targets can only be a good thing, surely?

''have huge impacts on human populations around the world'' - I so dearly hope so... !

Thanks for posting OP....
I just watched it.... and I have to say I found Leonardo's finale speech both to the point, and indeed quite moving alongside the visual.
It is important to realise the decisions we make everyday have far reaching concequences.

Leonardo dicaprio is the WRONG person to use.
The guy uses private jets everywhere.
I guess it's a movie about the well known quote " do as we say, not as we do "

This is all very well, but when it comes to climate change, I think we should trust someone far smarter than us.



(Unbelievable... And half the Americans want to elect him..)

Anyone remember the so called experts saying that acid rain would kill everything off in the 80’s and oil would run out by 2030………when money is involved you cannot trust anyone.
Look at this site for some epic expert fails.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/

Which one do you trust?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8

Plagiarism, they stole the plotline from lung cancer caused by smoking!

I did read it, funny line "he is among the less nutty of the prominent deniers" lol.
You do have to wonder who the hell to believe these days, one minute they say we will never see snow again in this country, and then we had a really bad winter I think it was 2013 maybe wrong, but it hit -19 in Worcestershire, then say this is global warming and can expect more of this……..what a load of blx……
Some expert quotes in my lifetime that have never happened.
Acid rain never happened.
The great ice age never happened.
London devastated by massive floods never happened.
Polar caps meltdown never happened.
Oil, gas and coal will run out never happened.
And that air pollution will be so bad we will all die a horrible death……well ok that is dramatic but never happened.
It’s a bit boring now, you see they cannot get away with this scare mongering any more, the internet exposes them for what they are funded crackpots!

O more accurately put.

97% of government funded climate change scientists whose jobs depend on them saying climate change does exist say it does!
It's a meaningless figure trotted out by those who have done no adequate research.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#1f40c6c07187

And as for settled science, it was settled science that the earth was flat once !

You don't have to read this if you don't want to but i felt i had to address some of the points you raise because they are all issues that I care about; and I don't like mis-information.
Please don't take it as a personal attack; that is not my intention.
I tried to keep it brief, but the number of issues you raised was quite plentiful... so inevitably, so is my reply :laughing:

Firstly, your snow point, you are talking about weather!
Climate change/global warming doesn't just mean that the global temperature rises; it also means we will see more extremes of weather, harsher winters, drier winters, wetter winters, warmer winters.

You then talk about 'acid rain',...erm there is plenty of evidence of the damage caused by acid rain, many areas of America, Eastern Europe and China have seen the consequences of this effect.
Scandinavia suffered huge effects to their forests and lakes.
Even within the UK there were signs of its action.
The reason acid rain dropped of the radar is because steps were taken to reduce emissions; desulphurisation equipment was fitted to power stations, thereby reducing' the current threat.

You then refer to the Great Ice Age....lol...... did you expect that to happen in the last 10 years?
The risk of a event as extreme as an ice age has still not gone away.... if climate change continues unaddressed and the polar caps/glaciers continue to melt, it could have dramatic implications for things such as the Gulf stream; which in turn could lead to North america and Europe becoming inhabitable due to extreme cold.

You then talk of London flooding..... London is still at risk of flooding due to rising sea levels; the Thames barrier is currently in operation for this reason, and it is likely it will be replaced in the foreseeable future with a structure more suitable to face future threats.

You then talk of the polar caps meltdown never happening..... I think if you take time to research this issue you will see that there is plenty of evidence to support evidence of extreme melting actions occurring, whilst this is less than expected in Antarctica the Northern hemisphere is seeing dramatic changes occurring.

You then bring up oil, gas and coal running out never happening? These are all finite resources, which means they will run out... this is inevitable, and one only has to look at many of the conflicts around the world to see that countries are seeking to control what resources remain.

Then you talk about air pollution effects not happening..... 7 million people a year are dying as a result of air pollution!
India and China, and areas of America are particularly badly effected, but even within Europe the effects of air pollution are felt. Lung disease, cardiovascular conditions and cancer are all conditions which can be caused and exacerbated by air pollution....

You might find it boring; but maybe if you took a little more time to look at the evidence coming out of reputable sources instead of the propaganda funded by organisations with vested interests you would see that all these issues are real threats to us and future generations.
Don't underestimate the power of the individual, decisions we make on a day to day basis have implications and consequences for the entire world and its future.

That old chestnut eh! Carbon dioxide (apparently a poison) which is released by the sea as the sea gets warm and is absorbed by the sea when the sea cools is at a slightly elevated level (though nowhere near historical highs) and is apparently causing the world to warm up. Even if that were true, termites produce 10 times the amount of C02 than all human activity and so should be the first target of any attack on Co2 surely??? Far batter than causing countless deaths in third world countries with the nonsensical carbon taxes and carbon trading.

Carbon offsetting eh? so because he is rich he is allowed to be a hypocrite?

Ha Ha, you believe the 97% lie because you are fed it so often. Do your research it s a complete fabrication, just google 97% consensus and see for yourself.

Climate change/global warming doesn't just mean that the global temperature rises; it also means we will see more extremes of weather, harsher winters, drier winters, wetter winters, warmer winters. >>>>> As climate changes so slowly, how do you are anybody know that we will see more extremes? In any case we are seeing fewer hurricanes and tornadoes and not more. The main causes of the extremes of weather change are movements in the Jet Stream and events such as El Ninjo,

if climate change continues unaddressed and the polar caps/glaciers continue to melt >>>>>>>> As we are talking about global warming here and not just localised weather, perhaps you can explain why Antartic sea ice is reaching record maximums?

All substances are poisons/toxic, it depends on the dose. With regards to termites, they're in a natural cycle that if runs rampant may have to be dealt with. As far as I know they're still in a normal equilibrium at the moment. Maybe if our human activity kills off more of their predators this will become an issue we need to address though. The problem with humans is that we have upset the balance so things are getting out of control, and if talking about animals, farmed bovine would be a huge issue that needs dealing with.

Carbon dioxide is not a poison though is it? It is one of the most fundamental building blocks of our World and without it we would die.

You seem to have missed the point that termites (in normal equilibrium as you suggest) are producing TEN times the CO2 of ALL human output (of which Co2 from fossil fuels is only a small percentage)

To think that man is solely responsible for the change/growth in CO2 is quite clearly nonsensical.

Yes, carbon dioxide is a poison, as is water, and oxygen. As I said, it depends on dosage.

And no I didn't miss the point, it was a bad one. The environment had reached a nice equilibrium, that we have broken. The correct way to deal with that is not to go and kill enough species to offset the extra we produce. We are in the biggest mass extinction since the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs because of human activity already, we don't need more reasons to make this worse

To think we are the main contributor (not sole) to the change is not nonsensical when backed up by empirical data, the conspiracy theories are the nonsense. Many of the supporters will be denying the moon landings and Elvis' death too

It depends how you define hypocrisy,clearly he acknowledges that his carbon footprint is larger than others and so he chooses to fund activities that reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide... thereby neutralising his individual impact.
Surely it would only be hypocrisy if he did nothing?

He is trying to scare people to do what he wants them to do. He wants them to reduce their carbon footprint by changing their lifestyle, yet because he is rich he can carry on regardless. If he really cared, he would cut down on his footprint AND donate some of his huge wealth to offset the carbon footrpint of those poor people in Africa who are dying due to being unable to keep basic medicines cool. I do indeed call this hypocrisy.

Given that we are at 400 ppm, what level would you suggest is the dosage that makes it become poison?

What nice equilibrium had the environment reached? Just look at temperature and co2 levels over millions of years and the one thing you will not see is any 'equilibrium'

You talk of empirical data and I agree with you. Unfortunately there is no such thing, all we have are biased manipulation, conflation, aggregation, deletion and assumption of differing datasources acquired by different methods with differing levels of certainty. Not surprisingly the IPCC computer models are better at driving carbon taxes than they are mapping onto the reality of our climate.

I would do a little more research about how the data is being manipulated before you suggest that the IPCC are using empirical data.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/24/german-professor-nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/massive-tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

I'm not sure I would call long term changes and melting with the northern polar regions as 'local weather'....lol.
As for your question... its a pretty complicated issue and I am definitely no authority on it ...
Arctic sea ice is very different from Antarctic sea ice and likewise so are the sea currents that operate in these areas. The Arctic sea ice essentially forms in an area surrounded by landmasses, whilst the Antarctic sea ice surrounds the edges of a frozen continent.
There is much greater snowfall in the Antarctic than in the Arctic and it is possible that this may have a protective effect on the Sea Ice and can accelerate its formation.
There are also differences in the two regions as regards winds and salinity and this also has a bearing on sea ice formation...
Then there is the ozone layer (and its hole) to consider which also may have had a role due to its effects on polar winds; this may be a particular factor in the formation of sea ice in East Antarctica.
However this is not to say that the Sea ice is not melting in Antarctica, because it is; there is evidence to suggest that warming of the seas is already causing issues, for example as shown by the more rapid glacial melting in the southwestern Antarctic Peninsula, here it is believed that the ice is is being undermined from beneath.

Then there is the Land Ice which is another matter entirely...lol :laughing:

Not entirely sure about the point your making here....
Carbon dioxide as a poison? Are you sure your not confused with Carbon Monoxide?
Carbon Dioxide would rarely be met at levels where it could become toxic unless you live on the edge of a volcano.

As for your sea comment... its a bit random.... the sea is indeed a sink for Carbon Dioxide but it cannot realistically be expected to absorb the levels we are continually pumping into the environment.
The natural systems work in balance and it is our activities which are disrupting this balance.

I understand your termite point, but they are part of the natural system and unless they are in some sort of population explosion; which i am sure i have never heard about I don't think they are very relevant to the argument.
Yes they produce Carbon Dioxide but they do it within the balance of natural system and have done for possibly millions of years, they are essential part of the ecosystem and i don't think pointing the finger at termites is the way to address our current climate concerns..... What would we do? eradicate all the termites in the world for behaving like termites in order to offset the unnatural levels of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere..... it seems neither sustainable or ecologically wise.
as for Carbon Taxes.... polluters need to pay for the damage they cause.

The maximum safe level is around 30,000 ppm and lethal 100,000 ppm (I couldn't find a nice ld50 figure from a google). I didn't say that the amount in the air was poisonous, I was replying to you saying co2 wasn't a poison.

Equilibrium's are time relative. Nothing in the universe can reach an equilibrium until the eventual heat death, but that doesn't mean the word doesn't exist. Certain systems can remain in equilibrium for hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousand of years. Something doesn't need to be in equilibrium for millions of year to be in equilibrium, so what you said is not very relevant to anything. co2 levels have been very constant for the last few thousand years at least, which is all of recorded human history, and now they're very not constant because of us. That would count as breaking an equilibrium.

As for Breitbart.com.... lols. Quoting non-credible sources doesn't negate mountains of data. https://www.realskeptic.com/2014/01/16/daily-show-versus-breitbart-com/

And as for the second link (which I haven't checked the validity of, but this calls in to doubt), there is tampering to a certain degree in every field in existence ever, especially in 'climate skepticism', but one example doesn't negate mountains of non-tampered evidence. If that were true, then anything on any subject is wrong, including the climate skeptics, so if that's your line of argument all subjects are done, forever.

You need sulfur dioxide for acid rain.

That comes from burning coal.

In the West we don't use a lot of coal, and if we do the sulfur dioxide is filtered out. In parts of Eastern Europe and Asia that still use coal and don't filter? Acid rain is very real.

I'm not sure why you don't think the polar caps are melting. The North definitely is. Horrifically. The South isn't, but there's a bloody great big hole in the ozone layer over it. Yeah... that's man-made. It's having a cooling effect... lots more freezing winds. We know it's there because... satellites.

Air pollution? Jesus. Just Google some of the horrific pollution problems they have in China in general. That s**t looks like something out of Bladerunner.

Thanks for eluding to the "scientific method", because I think 97% of consensus within the scientific community suggest a good number of trained environmental scientists believe in the fact of global warming. But I won't take into consideration their PhD's and their professorships and instead follow the lead 3% of crooked politicians, twisted plutocrats and ranting internet warriors.

You obviously missed my earlier post regarding the laughable and completely debunked 97% lie. google 97% consensus to find out how it is a complete nonsense.

All good points, but the figures being used are clearly being cherry-picked. The second link I posted is well-worth reading. The Facts are that there are no Facts with regard to man-made global warming. There is bad data, good data, guessed data, falsification and manufacture of data, removal of data, conflated data, good science, bad science, vested interests, computer models that are completely wrong, an unexplained pause in global warming for the last 18 years that the IPCC are struggling to understand. More questions unanswered than answered so quite obviously the science is not settled on this and therefore the actions being taken should be subject to questioning.

There's a lot wrong with this.

But let's deal with the "no global warming for 18 years" myth.

There have been 6 independent studies into this supposed hiatus. ALL found it to be... well... b0ll0cks.

You're clearly an expert scientist so I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding the studies, but if you need help start with:

“Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus”

Or perhaps download "Decadal climate variability and the 2000s hiatus" from here:

http://www.usclivar.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/Variations2015Summer-1_0.pdf

Those are two of the six.

(And for what it's worth, 2014, 2015, and - likely - 2016 were all the hottest years on record).

I agree with you on Carbon Dioxide. It is others that have stated it is somehow toxic, or a poison and the Global Warming flagholders try to confuse the general public by mixing messages and conflating different issues to create fear - e.g. Headlines talking about rising CO2 with a picture of a black smoke-emitting chimney stack when Co2 is completely transparent e.g. articles talking about acidification of the oceans, when they are alkaline...

Regarding the Sea, it is a huge CO2 sink and takes on 90,000 million tonnes of carbon per year http://www.ghgonline.org/co2sinkocean.htm The inclusion of the sea in my earlier post was because the sea takes on more CO2 when it is cold and relesaes it as it warms up. Atmospheric CO2 is not driving global warming, global warming is driving atmospheric CO2. There is a lag of about 30 years in the 2 graphs.

Regarding termites and CO2, the point is that human CO2 is a tiny percentage of all CO2 - 3.4% and that included the couple of pounds of the stuff thet each human emits each day. The growth of CO2 in the atmosphere clearly cannot be because of our use of fossil fuel, there has to be something else going on.

As we are at a historic low with regards to atmospheric CO2, surely it is within the realms of possibility that we are heading back to normality?

I'm sorry but... what?





(Old graphs btw. We're punching through 400ppm now.)

I have a feeling this conversation might never end... maybe we should agree to disagree.....lol :laughing:

Are you being stupid on purpose? The human race would be unable to survive in the times millions of years ago when carbon dioxide levels were far higher. If your argument is "we aren't in a time where humans aren't alive" then you've made it, but I'm not sure what relevance it has

LOL - Yes you might be right. I always respond to climate change issues when raised on forums such as this as it is important for people to look at all the issues. I only did so because I realised that some of what we wrere being told did not make sense. The more I looked into it the more I realised that we are being sold a pup.

They'll be still claiming it doesn't exist when major cities are under meters of higher sea level, and extreme weather is devastating regions of the planet, as the oil companies promote their low prices :smiley:

Like i said, i will agree to disagree with you....lol :laughing:

Right. This is all pretty basic stuff.

Loads and loads of studies done and verified on it etc (I'm presuming your source for this information is either deliberately or daftly ignoring these).

Apologies for a science class 101, but:

According to established nuclear models of main sequence stars our Sun used to burn a fair bit cooler.

I'm assuming you already know we actually need a certain balance of greenhouse gases to make the Earth habitable (otherwise it would be bloody freezing).

So yeah. Millions of years ago during these periods we know CO2 levels were extremely high (this isn't an exact science btw - during the Ordovician period they were likely anywhere between 2400ppm - 9000 ppm. Generally the further back you go the less exact it gets).

But at those levels, despite the reduced heat influx from the Sun, enough heat was retained by this bigger "greenhouse" to make life habitable yet still allow for glaciations etc.

As a side note that graph you've posted is adapted from Robert Berner's GEOCARB. He explicitly warns against using this to model past CO2 levels accurately because of the huge time steps involved (short term fluctuations are completely obscured). Sadly doesn't seem to stop a lot of skeptics sites. :disappointed:

Berner actually states "exact CO2 levels should not be taken literally" in reference to the model, mainly because it's so hard to accurately predict these given the huge time scales involved. They're rough guesses at best. The oldest ice core is only 750000 years old and would barely dent the right hand side of that graph.

You've gotta love the amount of cherry picking those who complain that scientists cherry pick everything do :smiley:

I am with you completely on the effect of the sun on climate which is why I find the absolute non-existence of its effect in the IPCC models to be rather bizarre. We are now moving into a period of lower solar activity akin to the Maunder minimum, so it is highly possible that we will experience moderate to severe global cooling over the next thirty years...

The use of that graph is simply because it is the first one I came across that covered millions of years. It was not cherry-picked, it was simply picked and the reason it was posted was to show that the 400ppm is extremely low relative to historic values. I needed to show that graph because somebody else had cherry-picked graphs that excluded data that didn't fit their message..... I wonder why?

No cherry picking on my part at all. I selected the first graph that showed the history of CO2 over millennia (and there are many) the only cherry picking that was done was by CaptainSocks who elected to show a fragment of history.

This is a bit like talking to a fundamentalist Christian tbh. So I'll have to phrase it as a "faith" question: what would it take to make you accept Climate Change is a real phenomenon? What more data etc do you want or need?

(There's loads of stuff concerning solar activity in the last IPCC and in the scientific community out there btw.

The sun is indeed cooling. But it's still getting hotter. Bet you can't guess why? :wink: )

That'll be the fragment of history we have actual data for being as the oldest ice cores only go back significantly less than a million years. :wink:

Out of interest, how do you think the graph you posted had its CO2 figures "calculated"?

(Clue: they weren't. They're rough guesses. By a bloke who said "look.... these are rough guesses. Please don't try to use them for climate science. They could be way out.)