Example of climate cooling

[Captain Caveman]

Thanks for developing the message better than I did.

So if you visualize 420 dollars, of which 400 was always there, and the new was 20 dollars, out of a million we put in 20 dollars.

And that 420 level is very low -

If we look back over 800 million years, the earth has only had one other low period of co2.

 

[Robert W]

And that 420 level is very low -

View attachment 869847

If we look back over 800 million years, the earth has only had one other low period of co2.

Thanks for that graph. I often remark that the correct graph for the so called hockey stick is actually a straight line. It is because the amount of temperature is actually very very small. So trying to make you alarmed, they came up with this wild ass graph called the hockey stick. It is faking you out. (not you the guy who handed us the graph)

 

[Robert W]

So the lake can disappear some 758,000 and 665,000 years ago naturally, but if a puddle disappears today, man caused did that.

I wish Democrats could learn to think. Seriously, you see it in science, politics and frankly the humanities.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Thanks for that graph. I often remark that the correct graph for the so called hockey stick is actually a straight line. It is because the amount of temperature is actually very very small. So trying to make you alarmed, they came up with this wild ass graph called the hockey stick. It is faking you out. (not you the guy who handed us the graph)

And if you look at temp v co2 -

They're independent. And the thing is, these readings were taking by scientists from ice core samples etc.. Yet, apparently I'm called a denier but I use science? What they mean is, their current scientists draw conclusions from data collected from the last 150 to 200 years.

The climate debacle is political, not scientific.

 

[BlindBoo]

And reduction of the use of fossil fuels has not reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere by any measurable amount. And human activity accounts for a teensy fraction of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

Nobody on the planet has shown any evidence that further reduction of use of fossil fuels will make any measurable change in the CO2 in the atmosphere.

The only time fossil fuel use dropped was a tiny bit during the Pandemic. Other than that world wide use has continually increased over time. Burning fossil fuel in the industrial age has increase CO2 concentration by about 50% From 280 ppm to 420 ppm.

 

[Donald H]

Sure.

Simple physics show the instantaneous GHG of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2. So why do the IPCC's models amplify that effect by 450% when the rest of the atmosphere is only 44% efficient at trapping its theoretical GHG effect?

It's science that is best left to the experts and so it comes down to the question again on whether or not the scientific community is lying. I tend to agree with the experts. To not agree is introducing politics into the question.

You could say that I have faith, but it's based on a very solid foundation. It's not just imagining the supernatural

How is that for a civil discussion?

You'll have to ask accredited climate scientists. Have you done that? Why haven't you?

Is it smart to lift information off of a denialist site when they represent less than 5% of the scientific community?

 

[abu afak]

As some of us know, California was in a drought. But it came out of it in 2022, full blast came out of the drought. The drought was alleged evidence of global warming, so it is proper to point out that now it is cooling as evidenced by the past several years and this winter, CA is in a climate cooling stage.
Here is what is happening in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

From the SF Chronicle.
A Winter Weather Advisory went into effect for the Central and Northern Sierra Wednesday afternoon and is set to last until 10 p.m. Thursday as up to 10 inches of snow are expected at elevations above 4,000 feet.
The National Weather Service warned drivers to expect slippery roads and travel delays — and around 7:30 p.m. Caltrans shut down westbound traffic on Highway 80 through Truckee due to "multiple spinouts."
As of 8 p.m., the agency had no estimate of when traffic would resume. Highway 89 was also shut down at Monitor Pass, a mountain road about 27 miles south of South Lake Tahoe near the Nevada border, according to California Highway Patrol. Further south, Highway 108 was closed in both directions in Mono County due to inclement weather with no expected opening time.

Highway 80 is a major highway that is in many states.

The OP was NOT an example of CLIMATE cooling it was Temporary WEATHER generated by EL Nino Dumping 10 rainstorms on California in 1-2 months.
In fact, 2023 has been/will be Globally the Warmest Year on Record, and more largely 100,000-125,000 years. (since the last interglacial).

Scripps Institute of Oceanography/UC San Diego
[......]

HOW WILL TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA?​

Average summer temperatures in California have risen by approximately 3 degrees F (1.8℃) since 1896, with more than half of that increase occurring since the early 1970s.
If global Greenhouse Gas emissions Continue at current rates, the state is likely to experience further warming by more than 2 degrees F more by 2040, more than 4 degrees F by 2070, and by more than 6 degrees F by 2100.
Some of the most impressive impacts of warming will be felt during short period heat events (e.g. days exceeding 106.6 degrees F). For example, if emissions continue at current rates, Fresno will likely suffer 43 extreme heat days per year between 2050 and 2099; 10 times more than its yearly average between 1961 and 2005.
[......]
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/climate-change-resources/faq-climate-change-california
`

 

[Robert W]

The OP was NOT an example of CLIMATE cooling it was Temporary WEATHER generated by EL Nino Dumping 10 rainstorms on California in 1-2 months.
In fact, 2023 has been/will be Globally the Warmest Year on Record, and more largely 100,000-125,000 years. (since the last interglacial).

Scripps Institute of Oceanography/UC San Diego
[......]

HOW WILL TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA?​

Average summer temperatures in California have risen by approximately 3 degrees F (1.8℃) since 1896, with more than half of that increase occurring since the early 1970s.
If global Greenhouse Gas emissions Continue at current rates, the state is likely to experience further warming by more than 2 degrees F more by 2040, more than 4 degrees F by 2070, and by more than 6 degrees F by 2100.
Some of the most impressive impacts of warming will be felt during short period heat events (e.g. days exceeding 106.6 degrees F). For example, if emissions continue at current rates, Fresno will likely suffer 43 extreme heat days per year between 2050 and 2099; 10 times more than its yearly average between 1961 and 2005.
[......]
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/climate-change-resources/faq-climate-change-california
`

It is going to be colder this year. And I believe in much of America. It is already very cold in Europe. Add in the cooling to the heating and you get a net cooling. Sure would be nice if cooling made you happy.

 

[Robert W]

The OP was NOT an example of CLIMATE cooling it was Temporary WEATHER generated by EL Nino Dumping 10 rainstorms on California in 1-2 months.
In fact, 2023 has been/will be Globally the Warmest Year on Record, and more largely 100,000-125,000 years. (since the last interglacial).

Scripps Institute of Oceanography/UC San Diego
[......]

HOW WILL TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN CALIFORNIA?​

Average summer temperatures in California have risen by approximately 3 degrees F (1.8℃) since 1896, with more than half of that increase occurring since the early 1970s.
If global Greenhouse Gas emissions Continue at current rates, the state is likely to experience further warming by more than 2 degrees F more by 2040, more than 4 degrees F by 2070, and by more than 6 degrees F by 2100.
Some of the most impressive impacts of warming will be felt during short period heat events (e.g. days exceeding 106.6 degrees F). For example, if emissions continue at current rates, Fresno will likely suffer 43 extreme heat days per year between 2050 and 2099; 10 times more than its yearly average between 1961 and 2005.
[......]
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/climate-change-resources/faq-climate-change-california
`

Say, why has this warming skipped Death Valley? Frankly all Ca keeps hearing is how much more snow they will soon have. No sign at all of this heat that makes you so fearful.

Check out the once evaporated Lake Tulare. See how huge it has become.

 

[ding]

It's science that is best left to the experts and so it comes down to the question again on whether or not the scientific community is lying. I tend to agree with the experts. To not agree is introducing politics into the question.

You could say that I have faith, but it's based on a very solid foundation. It's not just imagining the supernatural

It's science that says the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its GHG effect. Do you dispute that science?

As near as I can tell your beliefs are supernatural if you believe that 280 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 will be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect when the entire atmosphere of all GHG's is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect.

Doesn't that sound like a fairy-tale to you? Is this magic CO2? Did they get that CO2 from the same guy Jack got his beans?

 

[ding]

You'll have to ask accredited climate scientists. Have you done that? Why haven't you?

Is it smart to lift information off of a denialist site when they represent less than 5% of the scientific community?

Because I'm not the idiot who believes that 280 ppm of incremental CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical GHG effect when the entire rest of the atmosphere only traps 44% of its theoretical GHG effect. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that without questioning it. Whereas intelligent people will just reject that silly notion by inspection. It's a fucking joke and they should be ashamed of themselves for not asking themselves how that can be possible.

 

[Donald H]

It's science that says the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its GHG effect. Do you dispute that science?

If it's from mainstream science then I wouldn't dispute it. But I would be wary of accepting your conclusions, because you draw your information from the denialist side that is a small minority made up of mostly paid, big oil hacks..

As near as I can tell your beliefs are supernatural if you believe that 120 PARTS PER MILLION of CO2 will be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect when the entire atmosphere of all GHG's is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect.l

You have a history of telling little lies for the sake of your supernatural religious beliefs. For that reason I don't put much credibility in anything you say.

In any case, the verdict is in on climate change and global warming

Doesn't that sound like a fairy-tale to you? Is this magic CO2? Did they get that CO2 from the same guy Jack got his beans?

No, it sounds like you are misinterpreting some numbers purposely.

For one instance, you said that the multiverse theory was the atheist's dodge to dishonnestly reject the big bang. Now you're trying to say that the big bang universe is the same thing as the multiverse.

Religious superstitious beliefs are constantly evolving out of necessity

 

[Donald H]

Because I'm not the idiot who believes that 120 ppm of incremental CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical GHG effect when the entire rest of the atmosphere only traps 44% of its theoretical GHG effect. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that without questioning it. Whereas intelligent people will just reject that silly notion by inspection. It's a fucking joke and they should be ashamed of themselves for not asking themselves how that can be possible.

Profane expletives now? Are you into your cups?

 

[Donald H]

Because I'm not the idiot who believes that 120 ppm of incremental CO2 will trap 450% of its theoretical GHG effect

Are you claiming that the world's climate scientists are lying?
Your answer to that question would explain everything.

 

[ding]

If it's from mainstream science then I wouldn't dispute it. But I would be wary of accepting your conclusions, because you draw your information from the denialist side that is a small minority made up of mostly paid, big oil hacks..

But it is mainstream science. Why don't you know this?

Manabe and Strickler (1964) calculated the global-average strength of the “greenhouse effect” on surface temperatures assuming all energy transfers were radiative (no weather processes), based upon the theory of how infrared energy courses through the atmosphere. They found that the surface of the Earth would average a whopping 75 deg. C warmer than if there was no greenhouse effect. But in reality, the surface of the Earth averages about 33 deg. C warmer, not 75 deg. C warmer than a no-greenhouse Earth. That’s because convective air currents (which create weather) carry excess heat away from the surface, cooling it well below its full greenhouse effect value represented by their imagined “pure radiative energy equilibrium” assumption.

So why do you believe an extra 280 ppm will be 450% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect?

 

[ding]

You have a history of telling little lies for the sake of your supernatural religious beliefs. For that reason I don't put much credibility in anything you say.

Says the guy who had no idea that mainstream science shows the atmosphere in its entirety only traps 44% of its theoretical GHG effect.

 

[ding]

In any case, the verdict is in on climate change and global warming

Really? How much are emissions increasing each year? Isn't it like 1 billion tons of new CO2 emissions each and every year? A new US equivalent of CO2 emissions every 5 years. Doesn't really seem like the verdict is in unless the verdict says to create a new US worth of CO2 emissions every 5 years.

 

[Crick]

As some of us know, California was in a drought. But it came out of it in 2022, full blast came out of the drought. The drought was alleged evidence of global warming, so it is proper to point out that now it is cooling as evidenced by the past several years and this winter, CA is in a climate cooling stage.
Here is what is happening in the Sierra Nevada mountains.

From the SF Chronicle.
A Winter Weather Advisory went into effect for the Central and Northern Sierra Wednesday afternoon and is set to last until 10 p.m. Thursday as up to 10 inches of snow are expected at elevations above 4,000 feet.
The National Weather Service warned drivers to expect slippery roads and travel delays — and around 7:30 p.m. Caltrans shut down westbound traffic on Highway 80 through Truckee due to "multiple spinouts."
As of 8 p.m., the agency had no estimate of when traffic would resume. Highway 89 was also shut down at Monitor Pass, a mountain road about 27 miles south of South Lake Tahoe near the Nevada border, according to California Highway Patrol. Further south, Highway 108 was closed in both directions in Mono County due to inclement weather with no expected opening time.

Highway 80 is a major highway that is in many states.

Here's what temperatures across the entire the planet have been doing. California represents 1 / 1,203rd of the Earth's surface.

 

[ding]

No, it sounds like you are misinterpreting some numbers purposely.

For one instance, you said that the multiverse theory was the atheist's dodge to dishonnestly reject the big bang. Now you're trying to say that the big bang universe is the same thing as the multiverse.

Religious superstitious beliefs are constantly evolving out of necessity

It's completely a fairy tale and you are the religious nut job denying the science that says the entire atmosphere is only 44% effective at trapping its theoretical GHG effect but your magical 280 ppm of CO2 traps 450% of its theoretical GHG effect. It's amazing you can'tr see the absurdity of your religious beliefs.

 

[Donald H]

Really? How much are emissions increasing each year? Isn't it like 1 billion tons of new CO2 emissions each and every year? A new US equivalent of CO2 emissions every 5 years. Doesn't really seem like the verdict is in unless the verdict says to create a new US worth of CO2 emissions every 5 years.

In 1950 the world emitted 6 billion tonnes of CO2. By 1990 this had almost quadrupled, reaching more than 22 billion tonnes. Emissions have continued to grow rapidly; we now emit over 34 billion tonnes each year.