What ever happened to that ridiculous climate change hoax.

[Mushroom]

It can be, sure. But the geologic record of earth's paleo-climates isn't that controversial nor has it been politicized much like climate science has. Which is part of the reason I like using it.

I have talked with more than a few geologists and geology professors over the decades. And more than a few in the last few years have found that they have to tip-toe around the subject of "Climate Change" because they will come under attack if they do not. They will be talking about hard science relating to the ice age cycles, and whenever possible avoid any mention of a lot of things lest they be attacked as "deniers".

I have even watched lectures where somebody asked them directly how something discussed that is in the geological record compares to what is going on today, and they will simply respond with something along the lines of "I am discussing something 20,000 years ago, not today". Because if they pointed out the differences it would show that much of the claims of the alarmists are nothing but hot air.

And I was one that laughed back in 2024 when climate activists tried to shove a new geological epoch down the throats of geologists failed. They had been trying to get the "Anthropocene" passed many times as a way to advance their claims, and it has been pretty well rejected outright by most geologists.

And in the year and a half since then, I have laughed at the screams of the AGW crowd as they are still pushing for that. Not even realizing that as I often repeat in here, the naming of geological eras has not a gosh darned thing to do with "climate", it is about geology. And as is clear in the geological record, this is not the hottest interglacial on record but the coldest. And other than sea levels being at record lows for an interglacial, there is nothing geologically exceptional in the current one.

 

[ding]

Which is fine as long as you identify the proxy ... and then let me decide if the proxy is appropriate ... I use the ice core data you post here on a regular basis ... close enough to illustrate the need for longer time spans to calculate our temperature averages ...

Scientifically accurate temperature readings started with Daniel Fahrenheit in the early 18th Century ... though collection of this data didn't start until the late 19th Century ...

The oxygen isotope curve - which is well established for the Cenozoic - is widely considered to be the temperature record for the past 60 million years or so.

from Zachos et al. ( 2001 )​

 

[Mushroom]

Consensus based science is by definition tainted, which is why i posted this in politics.

If science is really based on consensus, then the sun really does revolve around the earth. Because everybody knew that was the reality not all that long ago. As well as the Earth being the center of the universe, and the entirety of the universe was contained within the Milky Way. Once again, the scientific consensus only around a century ago.

Consensus is almost the definition of anti-science.

 

[ding]

If science is really based on consensus, then the sun really does revolve around the earth. Because everybody knew that was the reality not all that long ago. As well as the Earth being the center of the universe, and the entirety of the universe was contained within the Milky Way. Once again, the scientific consensus only around a century ago.

Consensus is almost the definition of anti-science.

Almost? If it is being used to deter challenges - like it is here by some - it is 100% the antithesis of science. Here's why:

Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center said, "many scientists who don’t buy into the “mainstream” position on climate change are reluctant to voice their opinions"

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Mushroom]

Washington, Oregon, California get a lot of snow annually in the Cascade mountains, and it snows a lot in New Mexico Colorado region too.

Snoqualmie pass in Washington gets over 450 inches a year of snow on average at just 3,022 foot elevation.

LINK

Mt. Rainier has the largest glacier system of the lower 48 states by far and that is at the 47 degree north level.

The mid California Sierras get massive snow most years too.

I want to expand on this beyond what I said earlier.

It is not that there is snowfall or not that matters, what matters is how much of that snowfall is able to survive through the summer so more can be added to it the next year. In short, to make a glacier you have to have significantly more snow fall land each year, much more than melts off in the summer.

It does not matter if a mountain sees 1,000 inches of snow, if 990 inches then melts off before the next winter. The effect then is simply a year round snowpack, without enough accumulation to develop into a glacier.

In North America, that is roughly at 38° North Latitude. North of that, glaciers can form rather easily so long as the conditions are right. But south of there, even during the glacial maximum they have a hell of a time forming. And even when they do, they tend to form Cirque or Hanging Glaciers. In other words, glaciers that pretty much remain in a single spot and do not move. Unlike the Alpine Valley Glaciers that grow and move and create the iconic V shaped valleys.

This is why if you look at the iconic glaciers and the effects of them in the Cascades, they are very different than those of the glaciers in California. Up around Seattle the glaciers were able to reach the ocean, where as in most of California they would barely extend below the mountains they formed in. And that is clearly more to do with latitude, as the Sierra-Nevada Range can be quite high, and Seattle is basically at sea level.

Now interestingly, I can look out my front window and see Mt. McLoughlin clearly. And while some snowfall does remain on the summit year round, the last glacier on it vanished around 100 years ago.

 

[Mushroom]

Almost? If it is being used to deter challenges - like it is here by some - it is 100% the antithesis of science.

In this I agree 100%. But there is consensus that nobody can disagree with, and I absolutely hate when people throw around absolutes.

It is a consensus that if a human being reaches a body temperature of 70 degrees f and a week later putrefaction sets in they are dead.

Now I don't know of anybody that can dispute that, therefore I would call that a valid consensus.

But when consensus is tossed around as a way to shut down any dissent, that is simply not science. That is politics intruding itself into science and that I can not stand. In fact, I detest it as much as I do when religion intrudes into science.

The problem with "consensus" when it comes to AGW is that it is not scientific, it is 100% created and politically based. Hell, even the claim of consensus itself is nonsensical and has been shown to be a complete fabrication created by political activists.

Notice how often the AGW crowd claims the "Consensus is with them", yet myself and others can post a ton of actual scientific papers and studies that show it is wrong. And they will still come back with "consensus" as their response, and that anything that does not agree with that is wrong.

There is a reason why I typically equate that mindset to that of a religion. Complete with their screaming that anybody that does not adhere to their belief being a "heretic". I actually reject the very idea of consensus in this case because it is not based on science at all, but on politics.

And I eschew politics whenever possible.

 

[ding]

In this I agree 100%. But there is consensus that nobody can disagree with, and I absolutely hate when people throw around absolutes.

It is a consensus that if a human being reaches a body temperature of 70 degrees f and a week later putrefaction sets in they are dead.

Now I don't know of anybody that can dispute that, therefore I would call that a valid consensus.

But when consensus is tossed around as a way to shut down any dissent, that is simply not science. That is politics intruding itself into science and that I can not stand. In fact, I detest it as much as I do when religion intrudes into science.

The problem with "consensus" when it comes to AGW is that it is not scientific, it is 100% created and politically based. Hell, even the claim of consensus itself is nonsensical and has been shown to be a complete fabrication created by political activists.

Notice how often the AGW crowd claims the "Consensus is with them", yet myself and others can post a ton of actual scientific papers and studies that show it is wrong. And they will still come back with "consensus" as their response, and that anything that does not agree with that is wrong.

There is a reason why I typically equate that mindset to that of a religion. Complete with their screaming that anybody that does not adhere to their belief being a "heretic". I actually reject the very idea of consensus in this case because it is not based on science at all, but on politics.

And I eschew politics whenever possible.

According to Claire Parkinson, climatologist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, “It’s gotten so polarized that scientists who go against the mainstream worry they’ll be treated poorly in the press,” she says. “People will just say, ‘Oh, they’ve been bought off by the oil industry,’ but that’s not always true.”

A Closer Look at Climate Change Skepticism - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[ReinyDays]

I have talked with more than a few geologists and geology professors over the decades. And more than a few in the last few years have found that they have to tip-toe around the subject of "Climate Change" because they will come under attack if they do not. They will be talking about hard science relating to the ice age cycles, and whenever possible avoid any mention of a lot of things lest they be attacked as "deniers".

I have even watched lectures where somebody asked them directly how something discussed that is in the geological record compares to what is going on today, and they will simply respond with something along the lines of "I am discussing something 20,000 years ago, not today". Because if they pointed out the differences it would show that much of the claims of the alarmists are nothing but hot air.

And I was one that laughed back in 2024 when climate activists tried to shove a new geological epoch down the throats of geologists failed. They had been trying to get the "Anthropocene" passed many times as a way to advance their claims, and it has been pretty well rejected outright by most geologists.

And in the year and a half since then, I have laughed at the screams of the AGW crowd as they are still pushing for that. Not even realizing that as I often repeat in here, the naming of geological eras has not a gosh darned thing to do with "climate", it is about geology. And as is clear in the geological record, this is not the hottest interglacial on record but the coldest. And other than sea levels being at record lows for an interglacial, there is nothing geologically exceptional in the current one.

I've been dismissive of the whole "climate change" hysteria from the beginning ... it never made any sense ... and most importantly, it never made common sense ... hypercanes and hockey sticks are impossible, that's just NOT how weather works ... just more Asteroid Attacks fear from the uneducated ... oh no, wait, is it still Martian Invasion? ...

Warmer temperatures grow more food ... so we shouldn't say "global warming", that sounds like a good thing ... better deceive the public and call it "climate change", because that sounds wicked ... bottom line, weather isn't changing, and it will be trivial to mitigate sea level rise of 3-1/2 mm per year ...

 

[ding]

...it will be trivial to mitigate sea level rise of 3-1/2 mm per year ...

Especially since it's been that way for 6,000 years and there is nothing that can be done nor should there be anything done about it.

 

[Mushroom]

Especially since it's been that way for 6,000 years and there is nothing that can be done nor should there be anything done about it.

Hell, I am even more of a radical than most when it comes to climate. I honestly do believe that unless something changes in the next 10,000 years the next glacial cycle will be a killer. Possibly an ELE.

Most interglacials last around 30 ky. And we are well into the current one at around 20 ky. Yet the global temperatures and sea levels are far closer to that of a glacial condition than an interglacial.

Now there is absolutely nothing indicating scientifically that the glacial cycles have ended (especially as the geological reason they started in the first place has not changed). And that in around 10,000 years our planet will start to enter yet another glacial cycle and ice sheets once again start to advance. Now the last one happened when the planet was at A in the above illustration. Imagine the global impact if the next glacial cycle starts if the planet is at C in the above illustration.

If that was to happen, you can forget about the next LGM ending at around the US-Canada Border like the last one did. With significantly lower temperatures and lower sea levels, the next one might even extend past the Nebraskan and Kansanan Ice Sheets (which extended down into Kansas) and might extend even father south. As in down to Tennessee and Virginia.

During the LGM, the permafrost and tundra extended south from the US-Canada Border down to around Oklahoma. But in this future (let's call it the hypothetical "Tennessean Glaciation"), expect the tundra and permafrost belt to extend almost to the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[ding]

Hell, I am even more of a radical than most when it comes to climate. I honestly do believe that unless something changes in the next 10,000 years the next glacial cycle will be a killer. Possibly an ELE.

As the ocean cools it WILL suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. The last glacial period got dangerously close to extinguishing plant life. Hopefully we have pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to mitigate that risk. But yes, it does appear the glacial periods are increasing in strength.

 

[EMH]

glaciers exist far from the poles

Land within 600 miles of an Earth Pole

Antarctica 90% of Earth ice
Greenland 7% of Earth ice
Ellesmere Island 0.3% of Earth ice


all the rest, a whopping 2.7%, is sea ice and mountain tops.



What is in ice age? Greenland, AA and Ellesmere

Anything else? NO

Why does the taxpayer funded Faux Skeptic always run away from that truth?

LOL!!!

 

[EMH]

The last glacial period

Thread '"Interglacials" are 100% refuted by ice cores'

Oct 28, 2025

CO2 FRAUD is 100% about getting science invalids to believe planet Earth warms and cools as a whole. That conclusion was completely blown out of the water by the fact that Greenland froze while North America thawed during the past 1 million years.

The "interglacial" is part of CO2 FRAUD's attempt to mislead on that issue.

Google Search

The last interglacial...

• EMH
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Environment

• 

 

[EMH]

interglacials

Thread '"Interglacials" are 100% refuted by ice cores'

Oct 28, 2025

CO2 FRAUD is 100% about getting science invalids to believe planet Earth warms and cools as a whole. That conclusion was completely blown out of the water by the fact that Greenland froze while North America thawed during the past 1 million years.

The "interglacial" is part of CO2 FRAUD's attempt to mislead on that issue.

Google Search

The last interglacial...

• EMH
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Environment

• 

 

[ding]

God Lord, EMH is a loon.

 

[EMH]

Consensus based science is by definition tainted, which is why i posted this in politics.

Science is based on theory and data, validation or refutation.

Everything CO2 FRAUD says about climate change is easily refuted.

Everything EMH says about climate change cannot be refuted, has never been refuted, and that's why the "faux skeptics" run away from it... and keep parroting CO2 FRAUD bullshit like "interglacials" which ARE ALREADY 100% REFUTED...

Thread '"Interglacials" are 100% refuted by ice cores'

Oct 28, 2025

CO2 FRAUD is 100% about getting science invalids to believe planet Earth warms and cools as a whole. That conclusion was completely blown out of the water by the fact that Greenland froze while North America thawed during the past 1 million years.

The "interglacial" is part of CO2 FRAUD's attempt to mislead on that issue.

Google Search

The last interglacial...

• EMH
• Replies: 4
• Forum: Environment

• 

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Is does not matter if snow falls or not. What matters is how much of that snow will remain past "winter" so that it can accumulate year after year.

Now for that to happen short of a radical shift in climate (like an Ice Age), you generally need to have altitude. And by looking at a topographical map of the planet, one can quickly see that the places for that to occur are relatively few. Plus other factors are at play, like the length of the day-night cycle and if enough snowfall can be deposited in the shorter winter days so that the snowfall can remain and evolve into a glacier through the longer day cycle of the summer.

That is why there was relatively little glaciation in California as opposed to Oregon and Washington. During the LGM, the Cascades were heavily glaciated, often times with glaciers not actually part of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet flowing downhill until it met with and joined the ice sheet.

But this did not happen anywhere to the same degree in California, and what glaciation there was pretty much stayed in the upper Sierra-Nevada Range. Being farther south, that meant the extremes of day-night cycle were much less, and less snow was able to remain year round. There is a connection between glaciation and latitude. The farther north (or south) you go from the equator, the easier it is for glaciers to form. In short, the closer to the poles and father from the equator, combined with altitude and placement in relation to the coast.

That is why Mt. St Helens (46.1°n, 8,366') completely destroyed her glacier in 1980, and already has a new one that formed shortly afterwards. Yet Mount Lassen (40.5°n, 10,457') erupted over a century ago and still has not had new glaciers form to replace the ones melted in the 1921 eruption. That 6 degrees of latitude north makes all the difference.

Now Lassen will likely develop new glaciers, if enough time passes. It is high enough to retain snowfall year round, but not enough has remained to form a new glacier in just 100 years. But we can see seven of them on Mt. Shasta, which have formed in the roughly 3,200 years since it last erupted.

In general, you can draw a line at roughly around 38° north latitude, and other than at the highest altitudes there is little to no glaciation. And not just now, even during the last ice age. The more "temperate" day-night cycle simply prevents enough year round snow from accumulating to allow it to grow to the degree that a glacier can form.

This is why there is a lot of evidence of glaciers in Yosemite, but almost none farther south even if the mountains are even higher. Longer days and shorter nights in the winter just do not allow as much of it to add up year after year.

This is awesome !

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Interesting dialogue here ... I only want to weigh in on the meteorological parameters ... and how this relates to "true" data against proxy data ...

These parameters are temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, and precipitation ... these are the measurements we take every hour at every weather station ... these are the values that are measured directly, not inferred from any proxy data nor do they result with any statistical manipulation ... these six parameters are the "cold hard facts" of the matter ...

"Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics" -- unknown
"Lies, damned lies and statistics" -- Benjamin Disraeli

I think reading to much into these proxies is part of the bigger trouble from reading too much into statistical results ... and yes, average is a statistical result ... easily manipulated into saying exact what we want the average to say ... just pick and choose what you're averaging ... and climate model simulations run on computers can only say what they're programmed to say ...

if ( $T > 75 ) { echo "We're all gonna die"; }
else { echo "We're still gonna die"; }

See, really easy to encode perfect lies ...

=====

Consensus is political ... not scientific ... in science we use "cause-and-effect" ... never opinion ...

Finally the experts among us.
My dad was a Renaissance scientist.
I'm a musician.

But some here are both.

Thanks

 

[Etymology gaslight]

Interesting dialogue here ... I only want to weigh in on the meteorological parameters ... and how this relates to "true" data against proxy data ...

These parameters are temperature, pressure, humidity, wind speed and direction, and precipitation ... these are the measurements we take every hour at every weather station ... these are the values that are measured directly, not inferred from any proxy data nor do they result with any statistical manipulation ... these six parameters are the "cold hard facts" of the matter ...

"Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics" -- unknown
"Lies, damned lies and statistics" -- Benjamin Disraeli

I think reading to much into these proxies is part of the bigger trouble from reading too much into statistical results ... and yes, average is a statistical result ... easily manipulated into saying exact what we want the average to say ... just pick and choose what you're averaging ... and climate model simulations run on computers can only say what they're programmed to say ...

if ( $T > 75 ) { echo "We're all gonna die"; }
else { echo "We're still gonna die"; }

See, really easy to encode perfect lies ...

=====

Consensus is political ... not scientific ... in science we use "cause-and-effect" ... never opinion ...

What's the prognosis ?
seems to me
the only new thing about the weather calamity
is 350 million cell phones.

We know roughly what earth oil reserves represent.
What is the exponential
end value
of all the heat at the earth's centre ?

Is it quantifiable?

I dont want to rattle anyone
but how long will that last ?
Can we genesis the moon with
earth atmosphere excess.

In the next ten years on earth will there be more or less CO2 ?

My dad was a Ph d mit guy ('41)
Don't hold back the tech, if i dont understand ill ask or look it up.
Start with entropy & 2nd law ?

Thanks' for contributing.

 

[Etymology gaslight]

If science is really based on consensus, then the sun really does revolve around the earth. Because everybody knew that was the reality not all that long ago. As well as the Earth being the center of the universe, and the entirety of the universe was contained within the Milky Way. Once again, the scientific consensus only around a century ago.

Consensus is almost the definition of anti-science.

at one point Australia was voted down under.