What I Don't Understand About "Climate Change"

[Rigby5]

Whateverthefuck that is supposed to mean! Wow, what a simplistic view of the world you get with a junior G-man degree!


I see you haven't been in any bad crashes with a truly big ol' car, so more smoke out of your ass you blow. The big car wins every time. Physics 101.


There is no good reason for a small car unless you live in Italy with tiny streets or you are super cheap on gas. And if your commie ass thinks making all the big ol' mean big cars illegal to protect all those tiny death traps you are forcing people to drive in a good idea, just be done with it and outlaw cars altogether and make people drive motorcycles, or bikes, or walk. Hell with it, just ban all private transportation and make everyone wait for the slow, overcrowded, late, public subway!


That's right. I never said they did. YOU brought them up.


Is that another erroneous factoid you pulled out of your ass?


Then bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.


Glug, Glug, Glug.

What , "Strength changes with area while destructive weakness is proportional to volume" means is that big cars are already trying to rip themselves apart from their own weight, and small cars are immensely stronger. Same reason why an ant can carry 10 times its weight, and a human can not.

Big cars ONLY win in a head on. Most car accidents are from big cars having too much weight to be able to hold traction on curves. Big cars are far more deadly than small cars.

But you are right that mass transit is even better.

 

[Rigby5]

This climate gook is lying like hell since it has been cooling for 6 years while CO2 rises at similar rate unabated at the same time.

Most of the warming trend since 1980 has been cause by El-Nino phases which are obvious when you see the step-up warming after each end of the El-Nino phase then no warming till the next El-Nino phase shows up.

View attachment 613903
LINK

=====

It is the Sun/Ocean dynamo that drives weather and climate processes.

Climate gooks needs to let go of their CO2 unicorn fantasy as it contributes so little warming.

That is foolish.
El Nino is only a tiny part of the Pacific.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That is foolish.
El Nino is only a tiny part of the Pacific.

The data says otherwise, and you ignored the evidence that Satellite data and NCDC Data shows this rapid temperature rise when they show up in the Eastern Pacific.

The chart you saw shows it vividly. Here is the UAH chart showing the obvious El-Nino's in it:

LINK

 

[skookerasbil]

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening." (2014)3

ACS emblem
American Chemical Society
"The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities." (2016-2019)4

AGU emblem
American Geophysical Union
"Based on extensive scientific evidence, it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. There is no alterative explanation supported by convincing evidence." (2019)5

AMA emblem
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2019)6

AMS emblem
American Meteorological Society
"Research has found a human influence on the climate of the past several decades ... The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century." (2019)7

APS emblem
American Physical Society
"Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century." (2015)8

GSA emblem
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013) and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (Melillo et al., 2014) that global climate has warmed in response to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases ... Human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) are the dominant cause of the rapid warming since the middle 1900s (IPCC, 2013)." (2015)9

SCIENCE ACADEMIES
International Academies: Joint Statement
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

UNSAS emblem
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"Scientists have known for some time, from multiple lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate, primarily through greenhouse gas emissions."11

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
USGCRP emblem
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES
IPCC emblem
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

Just want to address your point #1

But wait....how does any of this matter if voters don't give a shit? Asking for a friend.

All these organization's...the same narrative for 20 years, but what has changed in the real world. The answer is....dick. Nobody is caring....which means the science isn't mattering

 

[skookerasbil]

There are no "proofs" in the natural sciences. There is evidence consisting of causal relationships, satisfied predictions and an absence of falsification. There is a GREAT deal more evidence that human GHG emissions are causing warming than that they are occurring concurrently. Your assumption here and in your other points that concern about global warming is solely held by "the left" is patently false. A far better argument may be made that such concerns are held by the educated but if that's a parallel you want to make, feel free.

Those concerned about global warming would like to see serious reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. That requires moving even more rapidly to alternative energy sources. That does NOT involve bankrupting the planet, wearing animal skins or eating berries. Oddly, you clearly admit here that human action is responsible for global warming and that a human response will eventually overcome it. As for the "factoid" you claim is being hidden; you certainly didn't learn that from the fossil fuel industry or their representatives. That stopping AGW will take committed effort and time is not a reason to skip it. It's reason to start is as quickly and as intensely as possible. You reason here like a grade schooler.

No one has argued that the US can end global warming on its own, thus your "biggie" is more of a nothing burger. Given our per capita consumption of fossil fuels, however, the rest of the world would have a great deal of difficulty succeeding without us. It is absurd - and I do mean absurd - to claim that demanding the US take action equates to a belief that no other country need do anything. The truth, of course, is that we must ALL act. And since we are citizens of this democracy, it is with our nation we can have the greatest impact. Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol, the Bonn Agreement, the Bali Action Plan, the Paris Climate Accord and others allow us to negotiate and apply pressure on other nations to take the action we all know is required. Again, you reason this issue like a grade schooler.

I'm laughing....you like to frequently take bows about how more "educated" you are than everybody else.

But then, why is it a guy so highly educated can't answer a very simple question related to emission reductions?

And that.....again...is....what about China? By my estimation, a graduate of elementary school up to the task.

So genius....how does the earth lower emissions with China opening a bizillion coal plants every year?

You refuse to answer it because you are a fraud!

 

[Rigby5]

The data says otherwise, and you ignored the evidence that Satellite data and NCDC Data shows this rapid temperature rise when they show up in the Eastern Pacific.

The chart you saw shows it vividly. Here is the UAH chart showing the obvious El-Nino's in it:

View attachment 613909

LINK

That is a total lie.
El Nino just means the Pacific high pressure went east instead of the La Nina when it goes west.
That is just weather, not climate, is local, and a complete wash in total.
And even the graph is totally lying because it is claiming to contain satellite captured, lower atmosphere, temperature readings. And satellites can't do that. Since atmosphere is transparent, any remote optical readings would be from the surface, not atmospheric.
No one ever includes El Nino data in anything, and El Nino averages out in weather effects, over the years.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm laughing....you like to frequently take bows about how more "educated" you are than everybody else.

But then, why is it a guy so highly educated can't answer a very simple question related to emission reductions?

And that.....again...is....what about China? By my estimation, a graduate of elementary school up to the task.

So genius....how does the earth lower emissions with China opening a bizillion coal plants every year?

You refuse to answer it because you are a fraud!


View attachment 614052

\
So you are correct China is building more coal plants.
But so what?
That does not mean we should also.
It just means we need to negotiate with China in order to get them to stop, some how.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That is a total lie.
El Nino just means the Pacific high pressure went east instead of the La Nina when it goes west.
That is just weather, not climate, is local, and a complete wash in total.
And even the graph is totally lying because it is claiming to contain satellite captured, lower atmosphere, temperature readings. And satellites can't do that. Since atmosphere is transparent, any remote optical readings would be from the surface, not atmospheric.
No one ever includes El Nino data in anything, and El Nino averages out in weather effects, over the years.

You keep ignoring the temperature data where it clearly shows when El-Nino's shows up such as the 1978 shift the 1987-1988 the 1997 and 2015 shifts all show rapid warming spikes easily seen in the UAH chart you ignored.

You are really dumb here since the FIRST chart specifically shows when El-Nino's shows up and by 100% coincidence the warming spikes shows up too then when El-Nino fades away it cools down sometimes rapidly.

Let's see if you ignore NASA Earth Observatory too who supports my position with clarity:

===

Though El Niño is not caused by climate change, it often produces some of the hottest years on record because of the vast amount of heat that rises from Pacific waters into the overlying atmosphere. Major El Niño events—such as 1972-73, 1982-83, 1997-98, and 2015-16—have provoked some of the great floods, droughts, forest fires, and coral bleaching events of the past half-century.

bolding mine

 

[Rigby5]

You keep ignoring the temperature data where it clearly shows when El-Nino's shows up such as the 1978 shift the 1987-1988 the 1997 and 2015 shifts all show rapid warming spikes easily seen in the UAH chart you ignored.

You are really dumb here since the FIRST chart specifically shows when El-Nino's shows up and by 100% coincidence the warming spikes shows up too then when El-Nino fades away it cools down sometimes rapidly.

Let's see if you ignore NASA Earth Observatory too who supports my position with clarity:

===

Though El Niño is not caused by climate change, it often produces some of the hottest years on record because of the vast amount of heat that rises from Pacific waters into the overlying atmosphere. Major El Niño events—such as 1972-73, 1982-83, 1997-98, and 2015-16—have provoked some of the great floods, droughts, forest fires, and coral bleaching events of the past half-century.

View attachment 614185

bolding mine

Liar.
The graph is stupid because we did not even notice global warming from 1951 to 1980.
Second is that no one measures global warming by weather like El Nino.
Global warming is measured mostly by water temperatures, and at the upper atmosphere boundary to space.
Ignoring all the melting glaciers, ice shelves, mountain tops, etc., is foolish.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That is a total lie.
El Nino just means the Pacific high pressure went east instead of the La Nina when it goes west.
That is just weather, not climate, is local, and a complete wash in total.
And even the graph is totally lying because it is claiming to contain satellite captured, lower atmosphere, temperature readings. And satellites can't do that. Since atmosphere is transparent, any remote optical readings would be from the surface, not atmospheric.
No one ever includes El Nino data in anything, and El Nino averages out in weather effects, over the years.

Liar.
The graph is stupid because we did not even notice global warming from 1951 to 1980.
Second is that no one measures global warming by weather like El Nino.
Global warming is measured mostly by water temperatures, and at the upper atmosphere boundary to space.
Ignoring all the melting glaciers, ice shelves, mountain tops, etc., is foolish.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Then that temperature spike in 1998 never happened that year it is a mirage that El-Nino showed up at the same time by coincidence.

You need to tell NASA that they are wrong really you discovered their error that is 5 years old, and nobody noticed it maybe you get your name on a plaque?

You will ignore this too also from NASA:

"El Niño is the largest natural disruption to the Earth system, with direct impacts across most of the Pacific Ocean. Indirect impacts reverberate around the globe in patterns that scientists refer to as "teleconnections." Scientists are actively trying to understand how these changes in weather patterns in one area can alter the movement of air masses and winds in areas adjacent to and even far away from the source. According to the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University, El Niño-Southern Oscillation is responsible for as much as 50 percent of year-to-year climate variability in some regions of the world."

===

You are another dumb warmist gook ignoring hard evidence placed in front of you.

 

[Rigby5]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Then that temperature spike in 1998 never happened that year it is a mirage that El-Nino showed up at the same time by coincidence.

You need to tell NASA that they are wrong really you discovered their error that is 5 years old, and nobody noticed it maybe you get your name on a plaque?

You will ignore this too also from NASA:

"El Niño is the largest natural disruption to the Earth system, with direct impacts across most of the Pacific Ocean. Indirect impacts reverberate around the globe in patterns that scientists refer to as "teleconnections." Scientists are actively trying to understand how these changes in weather patterns in one area can alter the movement of air masses and winds in areas adjacent to and even far away from the source. According to the International Research Institute for Climate and Society at Columbia University, El Niño-Southern Oscillation is responsible for as much as 50 percent of year-to-year climate variability in some regions of the world."

===

You are another dumb warmist gook ignoring hard evidence placed in front of you.

That is just really ignorant.
El Nino does NOT cause any higher temperatures to be recorded.
All it does is determine if wind will go east to west or west to east, in a small area of the Pacific.
It does NOT mean higher temperatures.
The total temp is the same.
It just moves where the heat will be noticed, to a different location.
{...
Originally, the term El Niño applied to an annual weak warm ocean current that ran southwards along the coast of Peru and Ecuador at about Christmas time.[7] However, over time the term has evolved and now refers to the warm and negative phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and is the warming of the ocean surface or above-average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.[8][9] This warming causes a shift in the atmospheric circulation with rainfall becoming reduced over Indonesia, India and Australia, while rainfall and tropical cyclone formation increases over the tropical Pacific Ocean.[10] The low-level surface trade winds, which normally blow from east to west along the equator, either weaken or start blowing from the other direction.[9]
...}
El Nino does NOT cause anything at all resembling global warming, and it has no effect on global warming data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

That is just really ignorant.
El Nino does NOT cause any higher temperatures to be recorded.
All it does is determine if wind will go east to west or west to east, in a small area of the Pacific.
It does NOT mean higher temperatures.
The total temp is the same.
It just moves where the heat will be noticed, to a different location.
{...
Originally, the term El Niño applied to an annual weak warm ocean current that ran southwards along the coast of Peru and Ecuador at about Christmas time.[7] However, over time the term has evolved and now refers to the warm and negative phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation and is the warming of the ocean surface or above-average sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.[8][9] This warming causes a shift in the atmospheric circulation with rainfall becoming reduced over Indonesia, India and Australia, while rainfall and tropical cyclone formation increases over the tropical Pacific Ocean.[10] The low-level surface trade winds, which normally blow from east to west along the equator, either weaken or start blowing from the other direction.[9]
...}
El Nino does NOT cause anything at all resembling global warming, and it has no effect on global warming data.

Yet you keep ignoring the end result of all that energy moving far to the East then going out of the ocean's surface into the air heating it up.

Let's see if you can answer simple questions,

Was there a large El-Nino in 1997-1998?
Yes or No

Was there a large temperature increase in 1997-1998?
Yes or No

Was there an El-Nino in 1986-1988?
Yes or No

Was there a large temperature increase in 1986-1988?
Yes or No

Was there a large El-Nino in 2015-2016?
Yes or No

Was there a large temperature increase in 2016?
Yes or No

Be honest with your answers.

 

[Rigby5]

Yet you keep ignoring the end result of all that energy moving far to the East then going out of the ocean's surface into the air heating it up.

Let's see if you can answer simple questions,

Was there a large El-Nino in 1997-1998?
Yes or No

Was there a large temperature increase in 1997-1998?
Yes or No

Was there an El-Nino in 1986-1988?
Yes or No

Was there a large temperature increase in 1986-1988?
Yes or No

Was there a large El-Nino in 2015-2016?
Yes or No

Was there a large temperature increase in 2016?
Yes or No

Be honest with your answers.

You have it totally backwards.
A temperature increase is what CAUSES El Nino.
So you should expect a correlation, but definitely it is totally impossible for El Nino to cause any sort of global warming.
It is NOT warming.
It is a shift of the direction that warm water goes, leaving cooling in its wake.