There is no Climate Emergency !

[Newtonian]

The emergency is in the mind and thinking of human beings, especially those totally complacent about how human beings are complacent.
Pollution and resource mismanagement are rampant, ugly, unnecessary, poisonous and, above all, inhumanly stupid. Continuing without change is idiotic.

Or, we could acknowledge that people live longer, better, and with more access to information than in any other time in human history.

It is most assuredly an acknowledgment of exactly that; this is the most reprehensible of generations because we know better.

So true. Sad that so many do not listen to accurate Scientific sources like Scientific American. For example:

Current Warming Is Unparalleled in the Past 2,000 Years

Today’s climate change is unique in its global scale compared to other historical periods

www.scientificamerican.com

Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036

The rate of global temperature rise mayhave hit a plateau, but a climate crisis still looms in the near future

www.scientificamerican.com

Excerpt:

"None of these plausible explanations would imply that climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases. Other measurements also do not support the IPCC's revised lower bound of 1.5 degrees C. When all the forms of evidence are combined, they point to a most likely value for ECS that is close to three degrees C."

 

[mamooth]

I hesitate to interrupt this two way brouhaha, but I will interject that I find the theory of anthropogenic global warming to be very unconvincing because of the plethora of abysmally failed predictions and the abundant deceit of the global warming disciples.

Yes, yes, your authoritarian cult mandates that you parrot such a reality-defying mantra. It's part of the long list of wacky conspiracy theories that you're required to at least pretend to believe.

Global warming denial isn't the actual cult. Extremist right-wing authoritarianism is the cult. Global warming denial is just a mandated belief of that cult.

I can see why the cultists go along with it. The right-wing thug cult is very violent and unstable, and cultists hate apostates even more than non-cultists. If a cultist were to stop mouthing cult-approved talking points, things could go very badly for him.

 

[Newtonian]

I hesitate to interrupt this two way brouhaha, but I will interject that I find the theory of anthropogenic global warming to be very unconvincing because of the plethora of abysmally failed predictions and the abundant deceit of the global warming disciples.

Yes, yes, your authoritarian cult mandates that you parrot such a reality-defying mantra. It's part of the long list of wacky conspiracy theories that you're required to at least pretend to believe.

Global warming denial isn't the actual cult. Extremist right-wing authoritarianism is the cult. Global warming denial is just a mandated belief of that cult.

I can see why the cultists go along with it. The right-wing thug cult is very violent and unstable, and cultists hate apostates even more than non-cultists. If a cultist were to stop mouthing cult-approved talking points, things could go very badly for him.

Sounds like you are entering into political bias - which I (and those of my religion) avoid.

Now, if you have a sense of humor:

If left is right and right is wrong, then left is wrong - right? Personally, when I am asked if I am alright I generally answer NO - that I am only half right - the other half is left.

Seriously, I defer to the scientific literature and our literature. I have been mostly quoting the body of scientific literature. Our literature confirms global warming but acknowledges the 'spin' different interest groups add to the actual data:

Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

Excerpt:

"GLOBAL WARMING has been described as the greatest threat facing humanity. What worries researchers, says the journal Science, “is the prospect that we’ve started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change.” Skeptics question this assertion. True, many agree that the earth is warming, but they are uncertain of both the causes and the consequences. Human activities may be a factor, they say, but not necessarily the primary one. Why the disagreement?

For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. In addition, interest groups tend to put their own spin on the scientific data, such as that used to show why temperatures are rising."

Conclusion of article:

"Some would argue, of course, that using an element of doubt as justification for doing nothing is gambling with the future. “How would we explain this to our children?” they say. Whether the climate models are accurate or not, we can be certain that the earth is in serious trouble. Its life-sustaining environment is being assaulted by pollution, deforestation, urbanization, and the extinction of species, to name just a few factors that no one can successfully dispute.

In view of what we know, can we expect mankind as a whole to make an about-face so as to spare our beautiful home—and us too? What is more, if human activity is causing global warming, we may have only years, not centuries, to make the needed changes. At the very least, making such changes would mean promptly addressing the root causes of earth’s problems—human greed, self-interest, ignorance, inept government, and apathy. Is such a prospect probable or just wishful thinking? If the latter, are we without hope? That question will be discussed in the next article."

 

[mamooth]

I was commenting on energy transport ... and dry air transports very little energy compared to wet air

That's nice. But since I never said or implied otherwise, why are you pushing story of how you supposedly pointed out some error of mine?

... I'm just pointing out your errors ... no need to get your fragile ego involved ...

Please quote this error of mine specifically, and explain exactly how it was an error. If your aren't just making things up to shield your fragile ego, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

 

[ReinyDays]

Please quote this error of mine specifically, and explain exactly how it was an error. If your aren't just making things up to shield your fragile ego, that shouldn't be a problem for you.

... and what exactly is convecting this energy? ...

Both air and water vapor. Which one moves more heat, that depends on the location. In a dry area, the air will be moving more of the energy, in a moist area the water vapor will be moving more.

Water vapor moves more heat ... period ... energy isn't moving in "dry areas", that's why they're typical hot ... if you'd study basic meteorology more you wouldn't make these gaffs ... air holds about 1 J/g/ºC ... compare to water's 2,100 J/g heat of evaporation ...

 

[Newtonian]

There is a climate emergency - though other ways man is ruining the earth (Revelation 11:18) should not be ignored. Greta Thunberg noted a number of factors, for example:

Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit

"You have stolen my dreams, and my childhood, with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones," activist Greta Thunberg, 16, tells world leaders.

www.npr.org

""The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences."

Sadly, many ignore the tipping points and dangerous feedback loops she is referring to.

Two of those feedback loops are deforestation and wildfires - any of you know what this has to do with atmospheric content of carbon dioxide/CO2?

 

[ReinyDays]

There is a climate emergency ...

It's hypocritical for you to burn fossil fuels to post this on the internet ... it's hypocritical for The Ugly Lil' Toad to be jetting all around the world emitting carbon dioxide ... you folks don't believe yourselves, or you'd be doing something to stop this emergency ...

Have you given up your car yet? ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is a climate emergency - though other ways man is ruining the earth (Revelation 11:18) should not be ignored. Greta Thunberg noted a number of factors, for example:

Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit

"You have stolen my dreams, and my childhood, with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones," activist Greta Thunberg, 16, tells world leaders.

www.npr.org

""The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences."

Sadly, many ignore the tipping points and dangerous feedback loops she is referring to.

Two of those feedback loops are deforestation and wildfires - any of you know what this has to do with atmospheric content of carbon dioxide/CO2?

My my, you fell hard for propaganda, how does it feel to be scared of the bogeyman?

What tipping points, what dangerous feedbacks?

She is a parrot of the warmist/alarmist camp, she doesn't produce anything new at all, she is a mouthpiece for the propaganda team, while she displayed abundant hypocrisy the whole time.

 

[mamooth]

Water vapor moves more heat ... period ...

Never said or implied otherwise.

energy isn't moving in "dry areas", that's why they're typical hot ...

Totally wrong. Quite a bit of energy is moving.

You've failed at basic meteorology. If you'd study the topic more, you wouldn't make these gaffes

if you'd study basic meteorology more you wouldn't make these gaffs ... air holds about 1 J/g/ºC ... compare to water's 2,100 J/g heat of evaporation ...

That comparison is a big apples-vs-oranges failure. I can tell you have no training in science, because you can't set up a problem correctly.

 

[ReinyDays]

... air holds about 1 J/g/ºC ... compare to water's 2,100 J/g heat of evaporation ...

That comparison is a big apples-vs-oranges failure. I can tell you have no training in science, because you can't set up a problem correctly.

Yeah, numbers just get in your way ... typical climate alarmist ... "energy transfer has nothing to do with energy transfer" ...

 

[mamooth]

Yeah, numbers just get in your way ...

So, you still don't understand why you comparison was apples and oranges, and you're trying to bluff your way past that. Yes, it is obvious.

typical climate alarmist ...

The proper response to me schooling you on the basics should be "Thank you." Or just say nothing. However, since you went the belligerent ignorance route, I feel compelled to correct your ignorance.

"energy transfer has nothing to do with energy transfer" ...

If that's what you truly believe, then you're too far gone to be reached by rational discussion. It appears that you're just flailing around now. Next time, when you get this deep in a hole, stop digging.

 

[ReinyDays]

Yeah, numbers just get in your way ...

So, you still don't understand why you comparison was apples and oranges, and you're trying to bluff your way past that. Yes, it is obvious.

typical climate alarmist ...

The proper response to me schooling you on the basics should be "Thank you." Or just say nothing. However, since you went the belligerent ignorance route, I feel compelled to correct your ignorance.

"energy transfer has nothing to do with energy transfer" ...

If that's what you truly believe, then you're too far gone to be reached by rational discussion. It appears that you're just flailing around now. Next time, when you get this deep in a hole, stop digging.

... and still not one thing said by you of any scientific value ...

Apparently, you don't know what "comparing apples to oranges" means ... you just threw that in my face hoping it would stick ... it's the bluffer who screams "you're bluffing" first ... it's the belligerent ignoramus who says "you're an belligerent ignoramus" ... "One calls their own judgement one way or another" ...

Yes, I understand when I quote you I'm posting something stupid ... that's why I put quotes around your stupidity ... is English your second language or something? ...

We have 1,000 watts landing on this particular square meter of ocean ... does a kilogram air gain 10ºC per second, or does 1 half gram of water evaporate? ... or have you never seen an ocean or lake? ... (notice I cleverly accounted for mass distribution, ha ha ha, you missed that mistake I made above, silly child) ...

Math is hard, even harder for liberals ...

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

It's a hoax, like Covid

And systemic racism

 

[flacaltenn]

Watts Up With That?

There is no Climate Emergency !

May 22, 2020

EXCERPT:

Reposted from edmhdotme

What if there is no Catastrophic Risk from Man-made Global Warming ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions are not the “Climate Control Knob” ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions really are a non-problem ?
But what if there is a real Global Cooling Catastrophe in the offing ?
It is the propaganda of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change alarmists that has illogically conflated Carbon Dioxide, the beneficial trace gas that sustains photosynthesis and thus all life on earth and which may cause some minor warming, with real and dangerous pollutants to create the “Great Global Warming Scare / Climate Change Scare / Climate Emergency / etcetera”, with their “we are all going to fry in the next few years” narrative”.

The temperature progression of Greenland Ice Cores, (during the Holocene interglacial above), shows that each high point in the past of our current benign epoch:

• Optimum
• Minoan
• Roman
• Medieval
• Modern

has been colder than its previous high point.

For the last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, cooling has been progressing at a rate considerably higher than during the earlier Holocene that encompassed the highest temperature of the Holocene Climate Optimum.

As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old, experience of recent previous interglacials shows that, on a geological time scale, it could well be ending quite soon. It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate, as it has done for the past 3 millennia, unless it terminates much more suddenly like earlier interglacials.

As a result of the failure to appreciate elementary arithmetic, physics and biology, the Western world has been forced to indulge in a massive guilt trip about its industrialised civilisation, with endless predictions of impending global overheating catastrophes. But instead it is likely that modern Holocene warming during the 20th century and particularly just at the end of the 20th century is:

• beneficial to the biosphere and Man-kind
• within normal limits
• sadly may be not now even be occurring at all.

The probability is that any current global warming is not primarily Man-made and in any case it could be not be influenced by any remedial action, however drastic, taken by a comparatively small part of the Global population, the developed Western democracies.

So that prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.

If it is so:

• all concern over CO2, as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
• it is not necessary to degrade the Western world’s successful capitalist economies to no purpose.
• if some warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for the biosphere and mankind.
• any extra CO2 has already increased the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
• if it is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for the biosphere and for human development, as has frequently been well proven to be BENEFICIAL in the past.
• a warmer climate would now be especially beneficial for the underdeveloped world.

Lot more in the LINK

=========

This will certainly excite a few warmist/alarmists, who wants to believe in a man made dooms day scenario, it makes them feel better.......

All I'm gonna say -- is what I always say.. I don't do ice.. Ice is not a thermometer or a temperature recording device... And it's NOT measuring the lower tropospheric temps..

So 1st of all -- the "last century" of any ice core is useless.. Because the gases that need to be analyzed are still MOBILE in the top feet of the sheet.. So IMPLYING there's a -0.13DegC decrease over the past millenium has to be RATIONALIZED with the +0.13DegC rise actually measured DAILY in the lower atmosphere...

NO DOUBT you can see all the Warm Periods in the Greenland cores.. But I'm doubting that "last millenium" of ice is a valid interpretation of that negative decline number...

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah, numbers just get in your way ...

So, you still don't understand why you comparison was apples and oranges, and you're trying to bluff your way past that. Yes, it is obvious.

typical climate alarmist ...

The proper response to me schooling you on the basics should be "Thank you." Or just say nothing. However, since you went the belligerent ignorance route, I feel compelled to correct your ignorance.

"energy transfer has nothing to do with energy transfer" ...

If that's what you truly believe, then you're too far gone to be reached by rational discussion. It appears that you're just flailing around now. Next time, when you get this deep in a hole, stop digging.

... and still not one thing said by you of any scientific value ...

Apparently, you don't know what "comparing apples to oranges" means ... you just threw that in my face hoping it would stick ... it's the bluffer who screams "you're bluffing" first ... it's the belligerent ignoramus who says "you're an belligerent ignoramus" ... "One calls their own judgement one way or another" ...

Yes, I understand when I quote you I'm posting something stupid ... that's why I put quotes around your stupidity ... is English your second language or something? ...

We have 1,000 watts landing on this particular square meter of ocean ... does a kilogram air gain 10ºC per second, or does 1 half gram of water evaporate? ... or have you never seen an ocean or lake? ... (notice I cleverly accounted for mass distribution, ha ha ha, you missed that mistake I made above, silly child) ...

Math is hard, even harder for liberals ...

You need more than MATH to solve that problem.. Since the (actually closer to 600W) radiation ability to IMPART any heating depends on the spectral energies.. IR warms only the top fraction of a mm.. While shorter waves do penetrate farther.. Light of any kind is a very inefficient water heater... I'm guess there's a lot of evap and the beginnings of convections at the surface..

Just a guess man... Don't jump at me.. I;ve had a beer about 3 hours ago and not sharp enough to really care...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Watts Up With That?

There is no Climate Emergency !

May 22, 2020

EXCERPT:

Reposted from edmhdotme

What if there is no Catastrophic Risk from Man-made Global Warming ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions are not the “Climate Control Knob” ?
What if Man-made CO2 emissions really are a non-problem ?
But what if there is a real Global Cooling Catastrophe in the offing ?
It is the propaganda of Catastrophic Global Warming / Climate Change alarmists that has illogically conflated Carbon Dioxide, the beneficial trace gas that sustains photosynthesis and thus all life on earth and which may cause some minor warming, with real and dangerous pollutants to create the “Great Global Warming Scare / Climate Change Scare / Climate Emergency / etcetera”, with their “we are all going to fry in the next few years” narrative”.

The temperature progression of Greenland Ice Cores, (during the Holocene interglacial above), shows that each high point in the past of our current benign epoch:

• Optimum
• Minoan
• Roman
• Medieval
• Modern

has been colder than its previous high point.

For the last 3 millennia, since 1000BC, cooling has been progressing at a rate considerably higher than during the earlier Holocene that encompassed the highest temperature of the Holocene Climate Optimum.

As the Holocene epoch is now some ~11,000 years old, experience of recent previous interglacials shows that, on a geological time scale, it could well be ending quite soon. It is therefore much more likely that the Holocene will continue to cool at at least its current rate, as it has done for the past 3 millennia, unless it terminates much more suddenly like earlier interglacials.

As a result of the failure to appreciate elementary arithmetic, physics and biology, the Western world has been forced to indulge in a massive guilt trip about its industrialised civilisation, with endless predictions of impending global overheating catastrophes. But instead it is likely that modern Holocene warming during the 20th century and particularly just at the end of the 20th century is:

• beneficial to the biosphere and Man-kind
• within normal limits
• sadly may be not now even be occurring at all.

The probability is that any current global warming is not primarily Man-made and in any case it could be not be influenced by any remedial action, however drastic, taken by a comparatively small part of the Global population, the developed Western democracies.

So that prospect should be greeted with unmitigated joy.

If it is so:

• all concern over CO2, as a man-made pollutant can be entirely discounted.
• it is not necessary to degrade the Western world’s successful capitalist economies to no purpose.
• if some warming were happening it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for the biosphere and mankind.
• any extra CO2 has already increased the fertility of all plant life on the planet.
• if it is occurring at all, a warmer climate within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for the biosphere and for human development, as has frequently been well proven to be BENEFICIAL in the past.
• a warmer climate would now be especially beneficial for the underdeveloped world.

Lot more in the LINK

=========

This will certainly excite a few warmist/alarmists, who wants to believe in a man made dooms day scenario, it makes them feel better.......

All I'm gonna say -- is what I always say.. I don't do ice.. Ice is not a thermometer or a temperature recording device... And it's NOT measuring the lower tropospheric temps..

So 1st of all -- the "last century" of any ice core is useless.. Because the gases that need to be analyzed are still MOBILE in the top feet of the sheet.. So IMPLYING there's a -0.13DegC decrease over the past millenium has to be RATIONALIZED with the +0.13DegC rise actually measured DAILY in the lower atmosphere...

NO DOUBT you can see all the Warm Periods in the Greenland cores.. But I'm doubting that "last millenium" of ice is a valid interpretation of that negative decline number...

Understand, since the resolution isn't annual, which and all other ice core data doesn't have, they also don't mention what resolution of the core data is either.

It still have value in that it is quite good for the region, since other proxy data show similar trends as well,

Since around year 0, glaciers that have melted away have been reborn and expanding again, since then other glaciers have reappeared, and they are showing up further south too. There is a cooling ongoing for thousands of years now...., glaciers are telling us that.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is a cooling ongoing for thousands of years now...., glaciers are telling us that.

Not mocking the "hearing of glacier voices", but I question even the BASIC methods of measuring the sea ice or the "extent" of a Glacier... If a "grid" in the Arctic has enough chunks of ice to make 15% by area -- it's considered "iced"... How entirely stupid is that to argue about in the context of a 0.13DegC GW per decade??????

Or if the "meltline" of glacier foot is only 2 feet thick does it COUNT??? Not really in the big scheme of things...,.

 

[Sunsettommy]

There is a cooling ongoing for thousands of years now...., glaciers are telling us that.

Not mocking the "hearing of glacier voices", but I question even the BASIC methods of measuring the sea ice or the "extent" of a Glacier... If a "grid" in the Arctic has enough chunks of ice to make 15% by area -- it's considered "iced"... How entirely stupid is that to argue about in the context of a 0.13DegC GW per decade??????

Or if the "meltline" of glacier foot is only 2 feet thick does it COUNT??? Not really in the big scheme of things...,.

Ok, I should have been more specific, I am talking about Glaciers on land, I will post a few glaciers that died early in the interglacial that have in last 2,000 years revived and grown. They are telling us that it has cooled enough for them to be making their comeback.

 

[ReinyDays]

Some glaciers in the Cascades are growing ... but this is for a lack of maturity ... all the glaciers on Mt St Helens disappeared in a few seconds back in 1980 ... it's going to take them awhile to grow back ...

 

[mamooth]

Apparently, you don't know what "comparing apples to oranges" means ...

Since you need help, I'll dumb it down.

You tried to compare the sensible heat energy of air to the latent energy of the same amount of water vapor.

However, since water vapor averages about 0.5% of the atmosphere, that's an apples vs. oranges comparison. An apples vs. apples comparison would have been comparing the sensible heat stored in air to the latent heat stored in a that typical amount of water vapor. That is, you should have divided your latent heat result by 200. You didn't do that, and thus your comparison was senseless.

You're welcome.

Yes, I understand when I quote you I'm posting something stupid ... that's why I put quotes around your stupidity ...

So now you're claiming I actually said "energy transfer has nothing to do with energy transfer".

You're assigning faked quotes to me. Quote faking is very uncool, and by engaging in such deliberate dishonesty, you've admitted you can't debate me.

We have 1,000 watts landing on this particular square meter of ocean ... does a kilogram air gain 10ºC per second, or does 1 half gram of water evaporate?

You pooched the math, being off by a factor of 10. The air would gain 1C per second, if all that energy went into the air.

This isn't a debate. You've been making the claim that sensible heat transfer is totally insignificant compared to latent heat transfer. You're wrong. Latent heat is the bigger effect, but sensible heat is significant. The 2009 Trenberth diagram shows latent heat averaging at 17 W/m^2, latent at 90 W/m^2. That's exactly like I've been saying. I've been right the whole time, and for inexplicable reasons, that triggers you.

Math is hard,

A helpful hint: Before you call someone else stupid, double check your work first.

even harder for liberals ...

You blew it. You were supposed to pretend that it wasn't right wing political beliefs causing you you to say dumb things. Now that cat's out of the bag.