The Profound Junk Science of Climate

[daveman]

haha, a perfect illustration of your intellectual fraud.

yes, I should go talk to flat earthers and those who think disease is caused by demons. You know, your crowd.

because, if I don't, then I am just a big meanie that hurts Davee's fee-fees.

GTFOH

Gosh, you sure do hate it when people criticize your religion.

I never said you should talk to flat-earthers or religious fundamentalists. That was your stupid idea.

I said you should talk to scientists who have worked with the current data and concluded man has little contribution to climate change. Your own closed-mindedness insists these scientists are the equivalent of flat-earthers.

There is no way you can deny you're a cultist.

 

[daveman]

Considering that we are in the middle of a 3 million year ice age I would say the correct temperature is as far away as possible from the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

Wouldn't you agree Fort Fun Indiana and Grumblenuts ?

Yeah, but you can't advocate for world socialism like that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not everytime. Stop being silly. You asked a question about the state of the science of a complicated topic being worked on by 100s of 1000s of scientists worldwide.

So you ask a nonscientist on a message board? Ask the scientists. Then discuss what they say.

What discussion did you want to have? Did you want the stranger to look this up for you?

Read the headline summary, it has general answers to those questions. Do you want me to post it?

Yeah, great conversation..... not.

 

[ReinyDays]

Not to sidetrack your conversation ( which really means I am) but your post reminded me that you never hear any of the people who think man is irreversibly altering the earth's climate talk about why earth's climate is the way it is or why it changed in the past.

Climate is average weather ... to learn why the climate is the way it is today means learning about weather and why the weather is the way it is ... and a lot of why the weather is the way it is has to do with how far we are from the oceans ...

Those who think man is altering the climate generally don't know anything about weather ... even climatologist themselves divorce themselves from advanced meteorology ... the math is too difficult ...

Sidetracking your sidetrack ... but if I've had to tell you this again, then you're still smoking to much pot ...

 

[james bond]

I'm not seeing any differences in results ... the wind still blows from the West right off the entire width of the Pacific Ocean ... the results are exactly the same as they were 1,000 years ago ... as they will be over the next 1,000 years ... California's climate won't change as long as she sits in the middle of that Westerly flow ...

ETA: Maybe better to say the southern half of the Westerly flow ... CA runs from about 32º to 42º latitude? ... the temperate cell covers 30º to 60º on average ...

Sounds like you are blind to the changes and are using nutty fairy tale logic to fit your wacko views. No one has climate records from thousands of years ago nor do they have forecasts from thousands of years in the future. Modern records go back a few hundred years.

We've had days over 20 yrs ago where a rainy forecast and looking day didn't produce rain, but those were the exceptions. Today, most living in Cali can tell the difference and that those forecasts are more off or fewer than before.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can't be any more "Carbon neutral" than 2020 and no effect on CO2.

Science = settled!

We have Consensus!

 

[Rigby5]

Climate is average weather ... to learn why the climate is the way it is today means learning about weather and why the weather is the way it is ... and a lot of why the weather is the way it is has to do with how far we are from the oceans ...

Those who think man is altering the climate generally don't know anything about weather ... even climatologist themselves divorce themselves from advanced meteorology ... the math is too difficult ...

Sidetracking your sidetrack ... but if I've had to tell you this again, then you're still smoking to much pot ...

No, climate is not the average of weather.
Climate is the sum of the energy mechanisms effecting the surface of any particular part of the planet.
For example, since the planet core is liquid, a rotational axis shift is possible, causing massive climate change to localized areas of the surface.
Another thing that can effect climate is ellipse, nutation, and precession of the earth's orbit around the sun.
The intensity of the suns thermonuclear furnace also has cycles.
Etc.

Clearly the atmosphere retains heat.
If not for heat retention, the planet would be over 40 degrees colder, and there would be a much more drastic drop in temperature at night.
The degree of heat retention is dependent upon the gases in the atmosphere.
And we know CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. are all powerful greenhouse gases.
We know greenhouse are warmer because the frequency of the light energy is shifter by the glass, and that prevents as much energy leaving as enters.

And finally, we know the normal climate cycle of warming and ice age cooling is over 110,000 years long, as there have been over a dozen of these cycles recorded on ice cores, etc. So we know where the earth should be in its current natural cycle. It should slightly be in the early cooling phase.
But instead by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by adding over 5 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere for the last 100 years, we are initiating the start of an additional warming cycle, on top of the previous natural warming cycle.
That will produce a double warming that has not happened in hundreds of millions of years.

 

[Rigby5]

Sounds like you are blind to the changes and are using nutty fairy tale logic to fit your wacko views. No one has climate records from thousands of years ago nor do they have forecasts from thousands of years in the future. Modern records go back a few hundred years.

We've had days over 20 yrs ago where a rainy forecast and looking day didn't produce rain, but those were the exceptions. Today, most living in Cali can tell the difference and that those forecasts are more off or fewer than before.

No, we have tree rings for records going back hundreds of years, but we also have ice cores to go back hundreds of thousands of years.
Forecasts have nothing to do with it.
That is an attempt to guess where air currents are going to move to and collide, which is very hard to do since the air masses are spinning.
Climate has nothing at all to do with weather.

 

[Mushroom]

Because I already know the answer. CO2 does not drive climate change and there is your proof.

The thing is, "climate" is one of the most complex systems on the planet. Second only to evolution. And any that claim to find a "magic silver bullet" to answer all things about it to me are nothing but snake oil salesmen. There is no single answer, there can not be a single answer.

Because the "magic silver bullet" answer leaves some huge freaking holes when looked at logically. Like "If CO2 drives climate change, what caused all those CO2 spikes before modern technology?"

Oh, that is just one, but it is a big one. Me, I see a cycle, and there is no hard connection. Sometimes the CO2 goes up or down and the temperature seems to follow. But other times, the temperature goes up or down and the CO2 follows. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that there is no actual connection between the two, either one might follow the other, or even lead it.

And to be honest, I am much less worried about any CO2 levels than I am the rapid deforestation going on. In fact, I actually believe that is a lot of the reason for increased CO2 levels because that is the mechanism that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. And the way I ask "climate alarmists" about that and they almost dismiss that concern with hostility tells me that they really do not care about CO2 at all, they are pushing some agenda.

And even 20 years ago I was discussing things I knew 40 years ago, like albedo. And it still fascinates me how often people that scream they know all about the climate do not even know what albedo is. That shows they are just "one trick ponies", and really do not understand the topic at all.

 

[ding]

The thing is, "climate" is one of the most complex systems on the planet. Second only to evolution. And any that claim to find a "magic silver bullet" to answer all things about it to me are nothing but snake oil salesmen. There is no single answer, there can not be a single answer.

Because the "magic silver bullet" answer leaves some huge freaking holes when looked at logically. Like "If CO2 drives climate change, what caused all those CO2 spikes before modern technology?"

Oh, that is just one, but it is a big one. Me, I see a cycle, and there is no hard connection. Sometimes the CO2 goes up or down and the temperature seems to follow. But other times, the temperature goes up or down and the CO2 follows. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that there is no actual connection between the two, either one might follow the other, or even lead it.

And to be honest, I am much less worried about any CO2 levels than I am the rapid deforestation going on. In fact, I actually believe that is a lot of the reason for increased CO2 levels because that is the mechanism that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. And the way I ask "climate alarmists" about that and they almost dismiss that concern with hostility tells me that they really do not care about CO2 at all, they are pushing some agenda.

And even 20 years ago I was discussing things I knew 40 years ago, like albedo. And it still fascinates me how often people that scream they know all about the climate do not even know what albedo is. That shows they are just "one trick ponies", and really do not understand the topic at all.

Deforestation and the urban heat island effect are real. It affects albedo, but they don't want to talk about that.

 

[ding]

No, climate is not the average of weather.
Climate is the sum of the energy mechanisms effecting the surface of any particular part of the planet.
For example, since the planet core is liquid, a rotational axis shift is possible, causing massive climate change to localized areas of the surface.
Another thing that can effect climate is ellipse, nutation, and precession of the earth's orbit around the sun.
The intensity of the suns thermonuclear furnace also has cycles.
Etc.

Clearly the atmosphere retains heat.
If not for heat retention, the planet would be over 40 degrees colder, and there would be a much more drastic drop in temperature at night.
The degree of heat retention is dependent upon the gases in the atmosphere.
And we know CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. are all powerful greenhouse gases.
We know greenhouse are warmer because the frequency of the light energy is shifter by the glass, and that prevents as much energy leaving as enters.

And finally, we know the normal climate cycle of warming and ice age cooling is over 110,000 years long, as there have been over a dozen of these cycles recorded on ice cores, etc. So we know where the earth should be in its current natural cycle. It should slightly be in the early cooling phase.
But instead by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by adding over 5 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere for the last 100 years, we are initiating the start of an additional warming cycle, on top of the previous natural warming cycle.
That will produce a double warming that has not happened in hundreds of millions of years.

We've been in an ice age for almost 3 million years. What you are calling an ice age is a glacial cycle.

 

[Rigby5]

The thing is, "climate" is one of the most complex systems on the planet. Second only to evolution. And any that claim to find a "magic silver bullet" to answer all things about it to me are nothing but snake oil salesmen. There is no single answer, there can not be a single answer.

Because the "magic silver bullet" answer leaves some huge freaking holes when looked at logically. Like "If CO2 drives climate change, what caused all those CO2 spikes before modern technology?"

Oh, that is just one, but it is a big one. Me, I see a cycle, and there is no hard connection. Sometimes the CO2 goes up or down and the temperature seems to follow. But other times, the temperature goes up or down and the CO2 follows. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that there is no actual connection between the two, either one might follow the other, or even lead it.

And to be honest, I am much less worried about any CO2 levels than I am the rapid deforestation going on. In fact, I actually believe that is a lot of the reason for increased CO2 levels because that is the mechanism that removes CO2 from the atmosphere. And the way I ask "climate alarmists" about that and they almost dismiss that concern with hostility tells me that they really do not care about CO2 at all, they are pushing some agenda.

And even 20 years ago I was discussing things I knew 40 years ago, like albedo. And it still fascinates me how often people that scream they know all about the climate do not even know what albedo is. That shows they are just "one trick ponies", and really do not understand the topic at all.

Wrong.
The fact warming can also increase CO2 by reducing the amount the oceans are able to dissolve, is not a contradiction to the fact CO2 in the outer atmosphere prevents heat from radiating back out into space.
Increase atmospheric CO2 definitely causes planetary heat retention.

So why are there ice age cooling and warming cycles before industrialization?
That is simple.
Plants absorb CO2.
That causes cooling.
Plants freeze, die, and release their carbon back to atmospheric CO2.
That causes warming.
That increases plant growth again.

Climate is not at all complex.
It is similar to "red skies at night, sailor's delight", even though that is about water vapor as a greenhouse gas.
If not for greenhouse gases, the whole planet would be 40 degrees colder, and nights could be about 30 degrees colder than days.

As for albedo, that is not yet a good factor, but only a bad one.
By that I mean the melting polar ice caps means less reflection, so more warming acceleration.
In the future, it may be a good factor, because once it gets warm enough to increase water vapor in the atmosphere, then we may have more opportunity for increased cloud cover that would reduce warming.
But do we really want to live with perpetual cloud cover?

 

[Rigby5]

Deforestation and the urban heat island effect are real. It affects albedo, but they don't want to talk about that.

Deforestation is a very big deal because eventually we will run out of O2 as well if we do not replace these plants.

 

[ding]

Deforestation is a very big deal because eventually we will run out of O2 as well if we do not replace these plants.

Maybe in theory but practically speaking that's not likely. But I can be convinced if you have some studies.

 

[Rigby5]

We've been in an ice age for almost 3 million years. What you are calling an ice age is a glacial cycle.

I am no expert, but it is my opinion you are wrong about that.

{...
An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed glacial periods (or, alternatively, glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades, or colloquially, ice ages), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called interglacials or interstadials.[2]

In glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6]
...}

Ice age - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rigby5]

Maybe in theory but practically speaking that's not likely. But I can be convinced if you have some studies.

How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?
Remember that at one time, the Earth's atmosphere was ammonia and methane, without any free oxygen at all.
It was only phyto bacteria and later phyto plankton that switched the Earth over to having free atmospheric oxygen at all.
It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Plants freeze, die, and release their carbon back to atmospheric CO2.

How much CO2 do frozen plants release?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

eventually we will run out of O2 as well if we do not replace these plants.

Oh no!!!!

How much oxygen do we have left?

Where will it all go?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?
Remember that at one time, the Earth's atmosphere was ammonia and methane, without any free oxygen at all.
It was only phyto bacteria and later phyto plankton that switched the Earth over to having free atmospheric oxygen at all.
It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.

How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?

Where is the oxygen going to go?

It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.

We'd die of starvation much sooner.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those who think man is altering the climate generally don't know anything about weather .

What is this hilarious bullshit? Every major Meteorological Society on Earth endorses the current scientific consensus on climate change.