Politico say ‘We’ve lost the culture war on climate’ (they mean “we lost the Science War”)

[ReinyDays]

And even with all that work we accomplished, temperatures clearly have risen by 3 degrees since the 50s.

Perfect example of what the OP is stating ... Climate Freaks LIE ... current average global temperature is only 1 degree above the 20th Century average {Cite} ...

Even the IPCC would be ashamed of you ...

 

[ReinyDays]

And it is also a fact CO2 absorbs radiant heat and converts it to vibratory heat that can not leave the atmosphere.

That violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics ... and you're ignoring latent heat which violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics ... I understand, there's magical forces at play here that only the 'cool' people can see and understand ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is interesting that so far only one climate nutball is posting here and he shows that he doesn't understand the article main point of their failure.

From the link I am sure he didn't read:

"...It’s been bad for believers ever since the ice cores showed temperatures rise before carbon dioxide does, and by hundreds of years, and we’ve known that since 2003. The only signature of catastrophe that mattered was the upper tropospheric hot spot, which was totally missing in 2005 and is still missing, (it was the only fingerprint they said that counted, right up until they couldn’t find it).

The data kept backing the skeptical side: 3,000 ocean buoys, 6,000 boreholes, a thousand tide gauges, and 28 million weather balloons. The ocean warming isn’t statistically significant, sea-levels started rising before we even built the coal plants, and still aren’t rising fast enough. The Holocene was wickedly hot for thousands of years, and they don’t know why.

Antarctica was supposed to be warming faster than almost anywhere but they were totally wrong. The only part of Antarctica that was warming was sitting on top of a volcano chain they prefer not to tell you about..."

Warmest/ alarmists climate cultists will never fully understand how badly they lost the debate because they are programmed to parrot their masters bullshit uncritically.

 

[psikeyhackr]

"...It’s been bad for believers ever since the ice cores showed temperatures rise before carbon dioxide does, and by hundreds of years, and we’ve known that since 2003. The only signature of catastrophe that mattered was the upper tropospheric hot spot, which was totally missing in 2005 and is still missing, (it was the only fingerprint they said that counted, right up until they

Temperatures rise before the CO2 does because the temperature change is caused by the Milankovitch cycles. They are slow that is why those temperature and CO2 changes take thousands of years. The rise in temperature brings CO2 out of the oceans amplifying the effect.

But now we are pumping out CO2 when the astrophysics would have us slowly sliding into more of an ice age.

This has been KNOWN for decades
.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Temperatures rise before the CO2 does because the temperature change is caused by the Milankovitch cycles. They are slow that is why those temperature and CO2 changes take thousands of years. The rise in temperature brings CO2 out of the oceans amplifying the effect.

But now we are pumping out CO2 when the astrophysics would have us slowly sliding into more of an ice age.

This has been KNOWN for decades
.

We are sliding slowly into another glaciation phase as the planet has been cooling for more than 3,300 years.

LINK

===

Meanwhile CO2 is still lagging temperature changes today you see it easily in the yearly scale as it shows a seesaw pattern.

While the warm forcing rate drops rapidly after the first 60 ppm and negligible by the current 430 ppm level.

LINK

===

Meanwhile there is no clear relationship between CO2 and temperature changes according to ice core data,

LINK

 

[psikeyhackr]

CO2 and temperature have been rising for the last 30 years. Now the temperature rises in the Arctic are affecting the tundra which is releasing CO2 and methane. That is outside of our control.

 

[Sunsettommy]

CO2 and temperature have been rising for the last 30 years. Now the temperature rises in the Arctic are affecting the tundra which is releasing CO2 and methane. That is outside of our control.

It has been rising since the late 1970's while the warming in the arctic is mostly at night and winter thus remains freezing thus little effect.

The release of CO2 and Methane has been going on for more than 8,000 years thus the effect is tiny today and nothing terrible happened.

You simply do not realize how small CO2 warm forcing is as when shown here, where basic math shows the feebleness of CO2 at todays levels.

===

"Here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.7 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation."

"The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

LINK

 

[Sunsettommy]

CO2 and temperature have been rising for the last 30 years. Now the temperature rises in the Arctic are affecting the tundra which is releasing CO2 and methane. That is outside of our control.

It has been cooling for around 3,300 years while there has been many short warming cooling trends the overall change is cooling downward slowly a reality you keep resisting.

There have been periodic warming trends since the 1850's as pointed out by noted warmist Dr. Jones,

===

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones​

Excerpt:

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

1860-1880 0.163	Yes
1910-1940 0.15	Yes
1975-1998 0.166	Yes
1975-2009 0.161	Yes

​

LINK

 

[ReinyDays]

Temperatures rise before the CO2 does because the temperature change is caused by the Milankovitch cycles. They are slow that is why those temperature and CO2 changes take thousands of years. The rise in temperature brings CO2 out of the oceans amplifying the effect.

But now we are pumping out CO2 when the astrophysics would have us slowly sliding into more of an ice age.

This has been KNOWN for decades
.

How does a change in obliquity change average temperatures? ... and show your math ... and why do you think there's any correlation between any of the Milankovitch cycles and the current glacial cycle ... i.e. how does a 100k year eccentricity cycle cause a 125k year climate cycle? ... see how these periods aren't even close ...

Do you have a citation for why the "astrophysics" has us sliding into an "ice age" ...

With these two fairly massive science mistakes, I'm guessing you don't understand saturation or equilibrium either ... but you should understand algebra ... actual astrophysics states that irradiation is proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power (Stefan-Boltzmann's Law) ... which means we have to pump out a lot of CO2 in order to change temperatures a little .. and 1ºC is tiny ... further, the more CO2 we emit, the less effect it has on irradiation, and thus less effect on temperature ... part of the whole "one photon, one molecule" theory we've been using this past century ...

Hypercanes and Hockey Sticks violate the Laws of Nature ... why do you believe in them? ...

 

[ding]

the astrophysics would have us slowly sliding into more of an ice age.

I hear that claim a lot. It's even stated in the IPCC's report. Unfortunately, they don't actually show that in their radiative forcing component breakdowns. In fact, they show the exact opposite. That changes due to the sun are slightly positive.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

That is foolish.
In the 1960's, cars were getting 10 mpg and now they not only get 30 mpg, but catalytic converters clean up 90% of the emissions.
So imagine how bad things would be now if not for the warmings about future Anthropomorphic Global Warming?

And even with all that work we accomplished, temperatures clearly have risen by 3 degrees since the 50s.
It was not until the summer of 1997 that the ice in the Arctic Circle melted enough to allow a ship through the Northwest Passage.
That has not been true for over 100,000 years.

And the carbon we added is not done retaining global heat.
We don't know how long it will continue to retain heat, until it reaches equilibrium and allows as much heat to escape as is retained.
That could take centuries, and cause such a high heat increase, as to cause all life on the planet to go extinct.

Here's the real climate "science"

China CO2 = (USA *2) + India

 

[Robert W]

The normal 12 ice age cycles we have had are from plants absorbing so much CO2 that the planet cools, kills the plants, the plants rot, the CO2 is returned, and the planet warms back up.
But these normal cycles are 110,000 years long.

Instead we have doubled the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, in less than 50 years.
That is many thousands of times faster.

And the last ice age was just melted off by the hottest natural warming part of the cycle, only about 15k years ago.
That means by doubling the CO2 artificially, we essentially are adding a new artificial warming on top of the already warmest part o the natural cycle.
That is an unprecedented double warming.
We have no idea what the result of this double warming will be, because it has never happened before.

It is very likely we will have such warming as to kill all life on the planet.
Venus has global warming from sulfites instead of carbon, but its temperature from global warming is over 400 degrees, so global warming is a serious threat to all life.

We the Chinese you mean. Plus, Africa too. Let's not forget South America and Europe.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Notice that psikeyhackr never addressed the CONTENT of my posts in the thread, he makes very small silly unsupported replies instead.

The stuff I posted are from OFFICIAL data and he ignores it.

LOL

 

[psikeyhackr]

Here's the real climate "science"

China CO2 = (USA *2) + India

Was that equation correct in 1975?

Time is a *****!

How much stuff did the US import from China from 2010 to 2024? How much CO2 came from producing and shipping it to the US?

We can never have enough simplistic nationalism.

 

[westwall]

Everyone old enough to remember the 50's knows it is vastly warmer now.
Look up the old images of the USS Nautilus going under the North Pole in the summer, in 1957.
The ice is thick.
Now it is open water in the summer.

No, it isn't. And the decade of the 1930's was far warmer than anything since.

 

[EMH]

Perfect example of what the OP is stating ... Climate Freaks LIE ... current average global temperature is only 1 degree above the 20th Century average {Cite} ...

Even the IPCC would be ashamed of you ...

Your "global temperature" is disproportionately Urban Heat Island Effect, and Surface Air Pressure proves it is wrong.

There is NO WARMING.

There is NO ONGOING NET ICE MELT.

 

[EMH]

and why do you think there's any correlation between any of the Milankovitch cycles and the current glacial cycle

all bullshit...

Thread 'The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago'

Aug 9, 2023

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure...

We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils, and clearly they did not live on top of 2+ mile thick ice at -60F...

• EMH
• Replies: 63
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

Thread 'How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?'

May 15, 2023

This is where the climate debate is now stuck.

Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today.

Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very "Dennis Quaid" approach to ice ages - they are lightning fast, quick, and agile. They come and go really fast.

Since 2010, Milankovitch has replaced "North American Ice Age" with the claim that the ice on Chicago recently that was 2.5 miles thick was only 75k years old.

Really....

My side, which is...

• EMH
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Environment

• 

Was it a glacial or an interglacial period where

GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED??


Glacial/Interglacial = 100% pure CO2 FRAUD BULLSHIT

 

[ReinyDays]

No, it isn't. And the decade of the 1930's was far warmer than anything since.

The Dust Bowl years ... catastrophic weather has always been with us ... it's included in climate ...

 

[ReinyDays]

all bullshit...

Thread 'The lies of Milankovich Cycles aka McBullshit - where was land mass Antarctica 70 million years ago'

Aug 9, 2023

McBullshit claims Antarctica has been on the South Pole forever, it never moved at all. And, while it is on the South Pole, it has rapidly gone from ice age to tropical paradise and back over and over.... a Dennis Quaid theory for sure...

We know that Antarctica has 70 million year old dinosaur fossils, and clearly they did not live on top of 2+ mile thick ice at -60F...

• EMH
• Replies: 63
• Forum: Environment

• 
• 
• 

Thread 'How old were the 2.5 mile thick glaciers covering Chicago in the past 20k-5 million years?'

May 15, 2023

This is where the climate debate is now stuck.

Every piece of land within 600 miles of a pole is in ice age, everything outside of that is not. Nobody has attempted to dispute that. It is the clear truth of Earth today.

Milankovitch Cycles, which I call McBullshit Cycles, take a very "Dennis Quaid" approach to ice ages - they are lightning fast, quick, and agile. They come and go really fast.

Since 2010, Milankovitch has replaced "North American Ice Age" with the claim that the ice on Chicago recently that was 2.5 miles thick was only 75k years old.

Really....

My side, which is...

• EMH
• Replies: 134
• Forum: Environment

• 

Was it a glacial or an interglacial period where

GREENLAND FROZE WHILE NORTH AMERICA THAWED??


Glacial/Interglacial = 100% pure CO2 FRAUD BULLSHIT

Your Englishing is bad today ... just post the math ... that should say what you mean clearly ...

 

[westwall]

The Dust Bowl years ... catastrophic weather has always been with us ... it's included in climate ...

Indeed.