# Global Warming/Climate Change



## Johnny b

Even though global warming is real and observed, it's still a political football to be exaggerated by some and denied by others.
These distortions didn't start with Trump or the current liberal left, the players of extremes have been at it since at least the beginning of the GW Bush administrations.

Unfortunately for humanity, science and reality are moving the projected scenarios closer and closer to some of those early gloom and doom projections.

And the same usual suspects on the conservative right are spreading lies to support denial.
A 1656 page National Climate Assessment ( https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ ) came out of the Trump administration recently only to be denied by Trump and the usual denier suspects.

Interesting article by Joseph McCarthy, an associate editor at weather.com discussing the immediate reaction and distortions from the denier camp.

https://features.weather.com/major-national-climate-report-came-deniers-got-tv/

The fact that Trump is a global warming denier is just cause to be skeptical of the denier mentality.
Science and reality is just cause to call them out on their lies.

(in my humble opinion, of course  )


----------



## Johnny b

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/



> Summary Findings
> 
> These Summary Findings represent a high-level synthesis of the material in the underlying report. The findings consolidate Key Messages and supporting evidence from 16 national-level topic chapters, 10 regional chapters, and 2 chapters that focus on societal response strategies (mitigation and adaptation). Unless otherwise noted, qualitative statements regarding future conditions in these Summary Findings are broadly applicable across the range of different levels of future climate change and associated impacts considered in this report.


----------



## flavallee

Since the 1960's, the global population has increased by a BILLION people about every 15 years.
That in itself makes global warming a very real fact.
I feel bad for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren who will be exposed to the consequences.


---------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Johnny b

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/



> Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of life, and the rate of economic growth.


----------



## Johnny b

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/



> Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.


----------



## Johnny b

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/



> Climate change affects the natural, built, and social systems we rely on individually and through their connections to one another. These interconnected systems are increasingly vulnerable to cascading impacts that are often difficult to predict, threatening essential services within and beyond the Nation's borders.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article:

* Rising Tides: How Near-Daily Flooding of America's Shorelines Could Become the Norm *

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...ericas-shorelines-21935?utm_source=feedburner



> From 2005 to 2015, the median annual frequency of flooding days more than doubled along the stretch of coast from Florida to North Carolina, according to an analysis by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The coast between Virginia and Maine saw a median increase of 75 percent during the same period.


----------



## Johnny b

* Greenland's melting snow makes new hockey stick (graph) *



> The last 20 years were no natural fluke.


Too much to copy and paste, but here's the graph:










( If you are reading this Lanmaster Mike, I still have a couple parcels half way up the Rockies for lease  )


----------



## Wino

Sadly, I've reached the point of no longer being concerned about climate change. The coming generations will have to make do with what they get environmentally, same as all past generations have done. In the USA we will continue to elect twits that say there is no climate change and man is not the problem - that's not going to change - and currently, we're going backwards, what with standards being eliminated for clean air, water, drilling / mining in National Forest, wildlife refuges, coral formations dying, pollution of our oceans. Nothing will get done UNTIL it's too late or welcome to "The Book of Eli" world of the future.

Every single time since Reagan, Bush II the nation has elected republicans that roll back or cancel environmental progress made. I haven't a clue what to call the current occupant of the White House since he has no set tenets, just a vile chameleon, bent on power and destruction. A true pariah. Rule by kakistocracy.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> ................... I haven't a clue what to call the current occupant of the White House since he has no set tenets, just a vile chameleon, bent on power and destruction. A true pariah. Rule by kakistocracy.


I see him simply as a malevolent opportunist.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> Sadly, I've reached the point of no longer being concerned about climate change. The coming generations will have to make do with what they get environmentally, same as all past generations have done. In the USA we will continue to elect twits that say there is no climate change and man is not the problem - that's not going to change - and currently, we're going backwards, what with standards being eliminated for clean air, water, drilling / mining in National Forest, wildlife refuges, coral formations dying, pollution of our oceans. Nothing will get done UNTIL it's too late or welcome to "The Book of Eli" world of the future.
> ..........................


I care, but realize not much will be done as long as it's dealt with as a political football.
I won't be here for the 'too late' episodes, more concerned about making it out of this decade because of a health issue.


----------



## Wino

Johnny b, we appear to be on the same life course. 

I too care, just quit fretting about something I have no control over. I do my part - recycle, recycled when it wasn't a fad; don't throw trash out car windows; try saving my resources or not wasting (water, heat). Always left camp sites cleaner than they were when arrived along with not destroying facilities (burning park bench for firewood as an example). It's frustrating to see the direction we are headed, but my conscience is clear. I do hope to be around for the next 2020 election and maybe even eke out enough extra time to see the Orange Stain and family in prison - wishful thinking, but gives me incentive.


----------



## mygenericemail

Climate change is a force of nature. 

Politicians have NOTHING to do with it.

Climate change has been happening ever since this planet was formed, and it's not going to stop because of bunch of whining cry-babies find it interrupts their selfish, egotistical, brain dead, neanderthal, a**backwards, moronic lives of sitting around on their cell phones texting idiotic nonsense to the person sitting 5 feet away from them, and being rude jerks to everyone else on the planet because they don't get their way.

Yes, humans have SOME effect on environment which has SLIGHTLY effected some parts of the climate, but it's like .01%.

Most of the climate change is due to the earth shifting over the past 100 years.........and we just happen to be in the wake of it.

President bashers aren't any better than the things they bash him for, which just makes them all hypocrites. The president doesn't believe in "climate change" because he knows humans have no control over it.

"Climate change" B.S. is just another reason for corrupt politicians and "world leaders" to drain even more tax dollars from us working stiffs who live from paycheck to paycheck.


----------



## Johnny b

mygenericemail said:


> Climate change is a force of nature.
> 
> Politicians have NOTHING to do with it.
> 
> Climate change has been happening ever since this planet was formed, and it's not going to stop because of bunch of whining cry-babies find it interrupts their selfish, egotistical, brain dead, neanderthal, a**backwards, moronic lives of sitting around on their cell phones texting idiotic nonsense to the person sitting 5 feet away from them, and being rude jerks to everyone else on the planet because they don't get their way.
> 
> Yes, humans have SOME effect on environment which has SLIGHTLY effected some parts of the climate, but it's like .01%.
> 
> Most of the climate change is due to the earth shifting over the past 100 years.........and we just happen to be in the wake of it.
> 
> President bashers aren't any better than the things they bash him for, which just makes them all hypocrites. The president doesn't believe in "climate change" because he knows humans have no control over it.
> 
> "Climate change" B.S. is just another reason for corrupt politicians and "world leaders" to drain even more tax dollars from us working stiffs who live from paycheck to paycheck.


You appear to be confused.
Probably a political issue.
The science behind climate change/global warming has been well established. The current deniers are no better than the exaggerators. And they both are politically motivated.

Climate change/global warming is an event and reckless human activity an element that adds to environmental changes beyond the norm.
It's measurable with science to describe the activity, and theory to project future results.

Hypocrisy has nothing to do with reality.
Only those that deny reality 



> Most of the climate change is due to the earth shifting over the past 100 years.........and we just happen to be in the wake of it.




Is that you, Lanmaster? LOL!


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> Johnny b, we appear to be on the same life course.
> 
> I too care, just quit fretting about something I have no control over. I do my part - recycle, recycled when it wasn't a fad; don't throw trash out car windows; try saving my resources or not wasting (water, heat). Always left camp sites cleaner than they were when arrived along with not destroying facilities (burning park bench for firewood as an example). It's frustrating to see the direction we are headed, but my conscience is clear. I do hope to be around for the next 2020 election and maybe even eke out enough extra time to see the Orange Stain and family in prison - wishful thinking, but gives me incentive.


All that certainly helps.
But one large problem is how we derive energy, mostly through oxidation of hydrocarbons.
There have been some interesting designs with ceramic fuel cells, but for mass generation, coal and even natural gas are favorites and currently large sources of CO2.
Nuclear reactors pollute and are hazards waiting for human error, to fail.
The Chinese have been working with fusion technology and I've read of some small successes, while the DB in the Oval office promotes coal and threatens to curtail the tax credits for electrical plugin vehicles, further locking us into hydrocarbons.

I had hoped to see some real success with fusion tech in my life, but I don't think that's in the cards any more for the US.

Reality......not enough people in the US think long term, vote short term promises, and don't get worried until they are in the middle of a bad situation.


----------



## Wino

Fusion is what I feel will be the future. Electric is just a stop gap. On the other hand, I don't see carbon fuels (coal, oil, gas) going out of use for another 50+ years, albeit a diminishing commodity . The USA will fall behind in new eco technology if we continue down the same political highway we're on now. Turnip doesn't believe in climate change or global warning because he doesn't understand what's happening, plus he no more cares about the planet than any other denier or your last name isn't Trump.


----------



## Johnny b

mygenericemail said:


> Climate change is a force of nature.
> 
> Politicians have NOTHING to do with it...................................


Politicians have everything to do with global warming policy.
When a leader imposes self interests and bias, there obviously is poor to bad policy that inflicts itself on society, usually for the benefit of those promoting the bias.

So, let's take a peak at 'crazy' and observe the results.

Updated article:

* President Trump on dire economic forecast of climate change report: 'I don't believe it' *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ecast-climate-change-dont-believe/2118152002/



> In a worst-case scenario, top scientists from 13 federal agencies say in the report, climate change - primarily caused by human activity - could deliver a 10 percent hit to the nation's GDP by the end of the century......
> .......
> "I've seen it. I've read some of it. It's fine," said Trump, who has called global warming a "hoax" perpetrated by the Chinese to gain a competitive advantage. "I don't believe it."


As to Trump's logic:


> "Right now we're at the cleanest we've ever been. It's very important to me," the president told reporters. "If we're clean and everyone else is dirty, that's not so good."


So....he's just stated a position 'to make the US as dirty as the rest of the World ' because he doesn't like the way Chinese compete in global trade.

Again, so.......does Trump have a little green worm in his head, or just the followers that believe the grifter's speil? (  )

If only it was this easy:


----------



## Chawbacon

Most of the individuals accused of being climate change deniers do believe that humans impact climate change; but, not to the extent that is claimed by the many in the climate change supporters camp. I have overheard several reasons that move many individuals to not believe in primarily human driven climate change.

Here are some of the reasons that I have heard based upon varying levels thought processes: 

Climate Change (scoff) just a new name for Global Warming. Couldn't get the people to buy into Global Warming so they changed the name (HA!).
Climate Change has been occurring throughout the history of the earth, why should I suddenly think that man has the ability to change the course of nature. 
Don't worry. The next big volcano to go off will decrease the global temperature for a couple of years. 
So let me get this straight, too hot - Climate Change, too dry - Climate Change, too wet - Climate Change, too clod - Climate Change, drought - Climate Change, flooding - Climate Change, blizzard - Climate Change. Us normal folk call that weather. 
Egypt used to be lush with greenery and covered in foliage. So, what did the Egyptians do to cause the Climate Change that turned their land into a desert.
We know that the earth used to be much warmer in prehistoric times. So, what did the dinosaurs do to fix their Global Warming problem.
The hockey-stick graph was proven to be a lie, based upon faulty math.
Climate change supporting (scientists and organizations) have been caught lying (via compromised e-mails) about the information contained within published Climate Change reports.
Short of a nuclear war; solar flares, solar winds, the earth's elliptical orbit, the tilt of the earth, shifting plate tectonics, and the path of the jet-stream all have a significantly greater impact on Climate Change than anything man could do.
If Climate Change is really that big of a problem, why pick on the United States to make small reductions, when other countries produce significantly more greenhouse gasses? China being subject number one. 
Liberal politicians keep getting caught in lies used to support Climate Change. Normally followed by an Al Gore - fish swimming in the street - comment. 
Yep, weren't we all supposed to be dead already from this whole Global Warming thingy?
Ummm, in the 70's /early 80's, the news told us to worry about Global Cooling. 
Considering the history of the planet there is little to no empirical data to prove the Global Warming theories. 
If the weatherman cannot accurately predict the weather/temperature next year, next month, next week, tomorrow, even today (sometimes); then how can they predict the weather/temperature 10 years from now?
I am sure that there are more; but, I am tired of typing.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Most of the individuals accused of being climate change deniers do believe that humans impact climate change; but, not to the extent that is claimed by the many in the climate change supporters camp. I have overheard several reasons that move many individuals to not believe in primarily human driven climate change.
> 
> Here are some of the reasons that I have heard based upon varying levels thought processes:
> 
> Climate Change (scoff) just a new name for Global Warming. Couldn't get the people to buy into Global Warming so they changed the name (HA!).
> Climate Change has been occurring throughout the history of the earth, why should I suddenly think that man has the ability to change the course of nature.
> Don't worry. The next big volcano to go off will decrease the global temperature for a couple of years.
> So let me get this straight, too hot - Climate Change, too dry - Climate Change, too wet - Climate Change, too clod - Climate Change, drought - Climate Change, flooding - Climate Change, blizzard - Climate Change. Us normal folk call that weather.
> Egypt used to be lush with greenery and covered in foliage. So, what did the Egyptians do to cause the Climate Change that turned their land into a desert.
> We know that the earth used to be much warmer in prehistoric times. So, what did the dinosaurs do to fix their Global Warming problem.
> The hockey-stick graph was proven to be a lie, based upon faulty math.
> Climate change supporting (scientists and organizations) have been caught lying (via compromised e-mails) about the information contained within published Climate Change reports.
> Short of a nuclear war; solar flares, solar winds, the earth's elliptical orbit, the tilt of the earth, shifting plate tectonics, and the path of the jet-stream all have a significantly greater impact on Climate Change than anything man could do.
> If Climate Change is really that big of a problem, why pick on the United States to make small reductions, when other countries produce significantly more greenhouse gasses? China being subject number one.
> Liberal politicians keep getting caught in lies used to support Climate Change. Normally followed by an Al Gore - fish swimming in the street - comment.
> Yep, weren't we all supposed to be dead already from this whole Global Warming thingy?
> Ummm, in the 70's /early 80's, the news told us to worry about Global Cooling.
> Considering the history of the planet there is little to no empirical data to prove the Global Warming theories.
> If the weatherman cannot accurately predict the weather/temperature next year, next month, next week, tomorrow, even today (sometimes); then how can they predict the weather/temperature 10 years from now?
> I am sure that there are more; but, I am tired of typing.


Heard it all before.
Here, actually, a decade ago.
Science keeps describing the situation and the deniers keep posting non sense, just like above.
Thank you for the examples 



> If the weatherman cannot accurately predict the weather/temperature next year, next month, next week, tomorrow, even today (sometimes); then how can they predict the weather/temperature 10 years from now?


Thank you for that. It's the typical response from those that don't understand the difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.
No wonder you seem so confused 

BS receptivity.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon? What is your view on climate change? Do you believe humans contribute or that it is, how do you say, just a new name for global warming?


----------



## Johnny b

I'd like to hear it also, but in non political terms or ideology.


----------



## valis

At the base, it is a very easy binary answer; do you believe in anthropoligical climate change?

Just waiting for the answer.


----------



## valis

and again, just a yes or a no will suffice.


----------



## Johnny b

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/



> Communities, governments, and businesses are working to reduce risks from and costs associated with climate change by taking action to lower greenhouse gas emissions and implement adaptation strategies. While mitigation and adaptation efforts have expanded substantially in the last four years, they do not yet approach the scale considered necessary to avoid substantial damages to the economy, environment, and human health over the coming decades.


Essentially, addressing environmental issues is more productive in a business sense than ignoring the issues that cause environmental /economic stress.
And those comments come from scientists hired by the US government, not liberal think tanks or political parties.

It should be noted that one of the great greenhouse polluters, coal, is being replaced by less costly alternatives that are less destructive.
It makes no sense to arbitrarily embrace inefficiency from an economic pov.

Coal is on it's way out. It's become inefficient relative to new tech and vast natural gas supplies in addition to solar and wind generation.

http://time.com/coals-last-kick/


> Between 2011 and 2016, U.S. coal producers lost more than 92% of their market value. The state's fortunes have stagnated in stride. Today West Virginia ranks 49th in per capita income, 50th in educational attainment and 49th in life expectancy.


In the rest of the article, it's obvious politics becomes the response to environmental issues rather than pragmatic solutions ( that happen anyway in a free market economy ) that expand new economic possibilities through new technologies.
Embracing destructive technologies past their prime, while being phased out makes no sense as in the West Virginia example.

Merely eliminating a process isn't an answer. Replacing it with something more efficient is a logical response.

Being a modern day Trumptonian Ludite isn't profitable, nor healthy.


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> Chawbacon? What is your view on climate change? Do you believe humans contribute or that it is, how do you say, just a new name for global warming?


Hello Valis. I will gladly provide my opinion. Unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated than a yes/no.

In my view, mankind can and does impact our climate; however, I also believe that there are many additional factors/forces that affect our perception of climate which have a much greater actual impact on the Earth's climate.

On the political perception wing, yes, I do think that Climate Change is Global Warming in sheeps clothing; but, I do not really care about the name. Personally, I believe that individuals supporting climate change are receiving a bad wrap due to self-inflicted credibility wounds. Additionally, supporters in the media have over-hyped the concerns and dissenters in the media have latched onto the self-inflected wounds and use them to decry any suggestion of steps towards addressing legitimate concerns. The resulting, toxic, political environment has severely impacted our ability to have rational dialog on the subject.

In my opinion, climate is much more than the temperature of the earth and the discussion should really be a very basic one, of which, the media has lost sight. Both sides of the media need to get rid of the arguable science stance, and discuss the issue in brass tacks. 

We need the air to breath. Keep it clean.
We need the water to drink. Keep it clean.
We need the land for raising uncontaminated crops and animals. Keep it clean.
Everyone needs to help US keep OUR planet clean. 
This is a simple message that everyone understands and would be much more effective that the current bologna zingers being bantered about today.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> http://time.com/coals-last-kick/





> Between 2011 and 2016, U.S. coal producers lost more than 92% of their market value. The state's fortunes have stagnated in stride. Today West Virginia ranks 49th in per capita income, 50th in educational attainment and 49th in life expectancy.


Hey Johnny,

I agree in general with the post; however, the Time article reference is a bit of a fallacious argument. The coal industry during this time frame was significantly impacted by President Obama's executive orders, his public statements, his support of the EPA towards the reduction of emissions produced by coal burning plants, and the inevitable investor pullbacks based upon the Presidents stance on coal.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hey Johnny,
> 
> I agree in general with the post; however, the Time article reference is a bit of a fallacious argument. The coal industry during this time frame was significantly impacted by President Obama's executive orders, his public statements, his support of the EPA towards the reduction of emissions produced by coal burning plants, and the inevitable investor pullbacks based upon the Presidents stance on coal.


You are letting your political hatred for the left cloud your perception of economic reality.
Yes, Obama did set up restrictive EPA regs, but it coincided at a time when both natural gas became abundant through fracking ...and electrical generation from NG became more efficient than coal fired generators.
While NG was cleaner, it also made economic sense to convert to NG because it was more profitable and held down consumer costs.

Note: this link is not to some left wing radical green conservation group.
This is economic reality:

* Closing Coal Power Plants, Replacing With Natural Gas, Makes Economic Sense *
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...lacing-with-natural-gas-makes-economic-sense/



> In 2008, coal powered more than twice as much American electricity as natural gas - 48% to 21%. By 2016, however, natural gas overtook coal as America's most prevalent power source. As natural gas power overtook coal power, American electricity became less expensive. American electricity prices are now lower in inflation-adjusted dollars than they were in 2008.


Trump is actually trying to lock the US into a higher priced energy market with the rationale of fulfilling one of his election campaign promises.

Jack.....economics impacted the usage of coal. While there probably will be a use for it in the future, it's a dying need as it's being replaced by more efficient and less expensive technologies.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ..............................
> 
> ...... Additionally, supporters in the media have over-hyped the concerns and dissenters in the media have latched onto the self-inflected wounds and use them to decry any suggestion of steps towards addressing legitimate concerns. The resulting, toxic, political environment has severely impacted our ability to have rational dialog on the subject.
> 
> In my opinion, climate is much more than the temperature of the earth and the discussion should really be a very basic one, of which, the media has lost sight. Both sides of the media need to get rid of the arguable science stance, and discuss the issue in brass tacks.
> 
> We need the air to breath. Keep it clean.
> We need the water to drink. Keep it clean.
> We need the land for raising uncontaminated crops and animals. Keep it clean.
> Everyone needs to help US keep OUR planet clean.
> This is a simple message that everyone understands and would be much more effective that the current bologna zingers being bantered about today.


And yet you posted the typical 'bologna zingers' as an apparent support for your position.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-2#post-9564486

Here's a fact: scientists hired by our Federal Government wrote an official report on climate change/global warming. I have referred to it in this thread.
Trump has refuted it by claiming he doesn't believe it.

You posted this:


> In my opinion, climate is much more than the temperature of the earth


This is just so sad.
From a previous post, you obviously don't know the difference between 'weather' and 'climate' nor understand that the dynamics of both are driven by energy distribution around the Earth, it's atmosphere, it's oceans and even lakes and the environment of it's land masses.
Change an existing dynamic by retaining more energy and the characteristics of that dynamic change. Both weather and climate.

Global warming and cooling, drive climate change. The weather is what you see and experience. Climate is a statistical analysis of weather data that provides patterns of the weather.


----------



## valis

> and again, just a yes or a no will suffice.





> it is a bit more complicated than a yes/no.


see if you can guess where I quit reading. C'mon man.....


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> .................
> 
> In my view, mankind can and does impact our climate; however, I also believe that there are many additional factors/forces that affect our perception of climate which have a much greater actual impact on the Earth's climate.
> .....................................


While the forum waits for you to type out a 2000 worded 'yes/no' response, I'd like to know what 'additional factors/forces' you think affect the perception of climate data. 
I've heard and read of 'cherry picking' along with 'political bias', but they are perceptions, not physical factors or forces of a scientific nature.

Are you forming some type of Lysenkian logic where climate is a determination by political perception?
Do you believe political perception is a scientific explanation?


----------



## Chawbacon

Wow! Ok. For those that are having problems understanding the nuances of my perception on Climate Change, I will drastically oversimplify:

Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS
Keep the planet clean. - Yeah. Makes perfect sense. 

By the way Johnny... Do you realize that you are perfectly acting out my complaint/concern with media involvement? Does it really matter that we disagree on the questionable science? Why not put aside the continued insults, name calling, and belittlement of opinion when we are in agreement that everyone needs to take better care of the only planet there is to live on? If people would allow the common sense discussion to occur, realistic solutions could be found and the realistic objectives of both viewpoints would most likely be met.


----------



## Johnny b

I notice a lot of avoidance in your responses to questions put to your comments, Jack.

Why is that?



> In my view, mankind can and does impact our climate; however, I also believe that there are many additional factors/forces that affect our perception of climate which have a much greater actual impact on the Earth's climate.


Do you understand the concept of climate 'tipping points'?
Apparently not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)
It's mankind's addition to climate pressures that is hastening tipping point events as opposed to a system functioning with out mankind's destructive activities , reacting to natural influences.
You should read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology)#Outline

And political insults have nothing to do with the current conversation nor will they get you any points. The topic is of a scientific nature. And I get the feeling you'd like to make it political by introducing arbitrary commentary that's non scientific in nature. Essentially trolling.
It's not exactly new to this topic 
Like the made-up BS you posted here:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-2#post-9564486

Or your above over-simplification:


> Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS


with out any scientific explanation to back up that out-burst.

Saying it doesn't make it so. Demonstrating there is evidence would, but you don't.



> the nuances of my perception on Climate Change


It appears your political support of Trumptonian logic is all you have to offer.
You say 'it's so' and in your mind that appears to be enough to 'make it so'.
That appears to be the Trumptonian version of Lysenko's fallacy.



> Do you realize that you are perfectly acting out my complaint/concern with media involvement?


I realize you are desperately trying to steer the conversation away from the science involved in global warming/climate change 



> Does it really matter that we disagree on the questionable science?


You haven't posted any commentary of a scientific nature.
Just wild claims of denial.



> Why not put aside the continued insults, name calling, and belittlement of opinion when we are in agreement that everyone needs to take better care of the only planet there is to live on?


I suggest you review this thread.
You are only getting whiny as your lack of constructive participation becomes obvious.



> If people would allow the common sense discussion to occur,....


Like your first post in this thread?



> Here are some of the reasons that I have heard based upon varying levels thought processes:
> 
> Climate Change (scoff) just a new name for Global Warming. Couldn't get the people to buy into Global Warming so they changed the name (HA!).
> Climate Change has been occurring throughout the history of the earth, why should I suddenly think that man has the ability to change the course of nature.
> Don't worry. The next big volcano to go off will decrease the global temperature for a couple of years.
> So let me get this straight, too hot - Climate Change, too dry - Climate Change, too wet - Climate Change, too clod - Climate Change, drought - Climate Change, flooding - Climate Change, blizzard - Climate Change. Us normal folk call that weather.
> Egypt used to be lush with greenery and covered in foliage. So, what did the Egyptians do to cause the Climate Change that turned their land into a desert.
> We know that the earth used to be much warmer in prehistoric times. So, what did the dinosaurs do to fix their Global Warming problem.
> The hockey-stick graph was proven to be a lie, based upon faulty math.
> Climate change supporting (scientists and organizations) have been caught lying (via compromised e-mails) about the information contained within published Climate Change reports.
> Short of a nuclear war; solar flares, solar winds, the earth's elliptical orbit, the tilt of the earth, shifting plate tectonics, and the path of the jet-stream all have a significantly greater impact on Climate Change than anything man could do.
> If Climate Change is really that big of a problem, why pick on the United States to make small reductions, when other countries produce significantly more greenhouse gasses? China being subject number one.
> Liberal politicians keep getting caught in lies used to support Climate Change. Normally followed by an Al Gore - fish swimming in the street - comment.
> Yep, weren't we all supposed to be dead already from this whole Global Warming thingy?
> Ummm, in the 70's /early 80's, the news told us to worry about Global Cooling.
> Considering the history of the planet there is little to no empirical data to prove the Global Warming theories.
> If the weatherman cannot accurately predict the weather/temperature next year, next month, next week, tomorrow, even today (sometimes); then how can they predict the weather/temperature 10 years from now?
> 
> I am sure that there are more; but, I am tired of typing.


You really think that was an intellectual attempt at a discussion? 
Like a member in the distant past, all you seem to offer is trolling.
Sure it's fun, at least till you get called out for it LOL!



> Why not put aside the continued insults, name calling, and belittlement of opinion when we....


What insults, name calling and belittlement are you referring to other than noting your constant whine when things go typically wrong for you? (  )

So, let's look at your sincerity.



> Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS


And then follow up a few sentences later with:


> If people would allow the common sense discussion to occur, realistic solutions could be found and the realistic objectives of both viewpoints would most likely be met.


LOL!
I'm sure others see the contradiction 

You did finally respond to Tim's question . ( *" Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS "*

But I suspect you aren't going to respond to mine.


----------



## Johnny b

More from the US Government's scientists Fourth National Climate Assessment:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/



> The quality and quantity of water available for use by people and ecosystems across the country are being affected by climate change, increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production, industry, recreation, and the environment.
> .............
> Rising air and water temperatures and changes in precipitation are intensifying droughts, increasing heavy downpours, reducing snowpack, and causing declines in surface water quality, with varying impacts across regions.
> .................
> Groundwater depletion is exacerbating drought risk in many parts of the United States, particularly in the Southwest and Southern Great Plains. Dependable and safe water supplies for U.S. Caribbean, Hawai'i, and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Island communities are threatened by drought, flooding, and saltwater contamination due to sea level rise.


----------



## Brigham

In my opinion, most of the world's problems are down to too many people on this overcrowded planet


----------



## Johnny b

Brigham said:


> In my opinion, most of the world's problems are down to too many people on this overcrowded planet


That certainly is a major problem to deal with.
Overcrowding, dwindling resources and an environment becoming more and more unfriendly as time passes.
Add to that governments that 'pass the buck' to the future and that future begins to look grim.


----------



## Brigham

I see hundreds of pleas for charity to keep starving children alive in various parts of the world. Money should go to birth control. I know the argument that the children are there to keep the elders of the family in their old age, but if they are dying they are not able to do anything at all. China started limiting families but they have stopped that now. I don't know why, perhaps the muslims are out breeding them. Which is what one muslim said to me they would do in the UK.


----------



## valis

It is not the AMOUNT of people at all. We are nowhere near critical mass as far as humans go. If humans rank in the top 10 globally of biomass I would be surprised. It is what we, as humans, produce as waste products.

And brigham? I fail to see what Muslims have to do with climate change. Please keep this thread related to that topic as religion does not figure into science.

Thanks,

v


----------



## valis

This needs to be addressed....



Chawbacon said:


> Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS


You need to justify this. I can justify at least a 4% change in CO2 emissions directly related to anthropogenic enterprises and will be happy to do so.

Hell, I've been paid for my research in that topic.

So yeah, I am going to need some sources (preferably peer reviewed) that show that anthropogenic climate change is bogus


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> This needs to be addressed....
> 
> You need to justify this. I can justify at least a 4% change in CO2 emissions directly related to anthropogenic enterprises and will be happy to do so.
> 
> Hell, I've been paid for my research in that topic.
> 
> So yeah, I am going to need some sources (preferably peer reviewed) that show that anthropogenic climate change is bogus


Hello Valis,

I cannot argue against anthropogenic enterprises having caused a significant increase in CO2 emissions, and the subsequent absorption of CO2 into our atmosphere. There is just too much data proving that to be true. Although, since we breath out CO2 and plants absorb CO2 to survive, I am not convinced that CO2 is such a bad molecular structure. However, the bi-products created by burning fossil fuels is extremely concerning for our environment. Also, more concerning to me, is that there has to be a balance between CO2 and Oxygen that needs to be maintained to ensure a breathable atmosphere.

For me, the anthropogenic thought process introduced to the world by the IPCC (concluding that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that creates global warming) has some basic problems; because, my understanding is that water is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 and there is significantly more water in the atmosphere than CO2. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Valis, please understand that I am not trying to be a smart butt with this statement. I would sincerely value your opinion, since you seem to have a professional background in this area and my scientific understanding is admittedly limited.


----------



## valis

Well, which is it? Is it BS, as you stated, or you cannot argue against it, as you also stated?


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> You did finally respond to Tim's question . ( *" Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS "*
> 
> But I suspect you aren't going to respond to mine.


Johnny, you are correct, I do not typically reply to inflammatory and accusatory questions. Simply because these type of questions/statements move the topic from a discussion to an argumentative debate. However, I will attempt to wade through the cacophony and reply to some of the pertinent points.



Johnny b said:


> It's mankind's addition to climate pressures that is hastening tipping point events as opposed to a system functioning with out mankind's destructive activities , reacting to natural influences.


That may be true; but, the presumed "tipping point" is based upon a man-made data set that is entered into a computer to develop a "computer model." Additionally, the data sets supporting the model seems to change every year, or so, making the "tipping point" a moving target. Furthermore, the models and reports concerning climate change have been found to use questionable tactics where data appears to have been cherry-picked, actively omitted, and/or manipulated to not contradict with the global warming theory. Here are a few articles on that topic:
https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/



Johnny b said:


> I suggest you review this thread.
> You are only getting whiny as your lack of constructive participation becomes obvious.
> 
> Like your first post in this thread?


Not a pertinent point; but, deserving of a response.

My original post in this thread simply noted some of the objections overheard from many individuals that do not give credence to the global warming theory. I never stated that these were my beliefs and openly stated that the viewpoints were made with varying levels of thought processes. As a bit of personal advice, you may want to avoid speaking on the behalf of individuals that does not share your viewpoint, as that practice is neither becoming, nor professional.


----------



## Johnny b

The link you posted is valid, but not in the context you are trying to claim.

From the link, these two paragraphs obviously were ignored as to their context:



> Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).
> 
> "That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."


What you also forget, or ignore, is when relative humidity reaches a certain point, water vapor precipitates. CO2 conversion is dependent upon biological activity which has a limitation.
Anthropogenic processes exceed the natural balance of CO2 in our environment, causing an increase in concentrations over and above what nature provides.
And scientific data shows a rate of increasing concentrations.

Precipitation maintains a balance of water vapor but since there is no natural means to balance excessive CO2, concentrations increase as does it's ability to increase warming.

And a note ( off topic ) about the water vapor fallacy, it's also used by extreme fundamentalists of a young earth creationist persuasion in claiming a 6000 year old Earth.


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> Well, which is it? Is it BS, as you stated, or you cannot argue against it, as you also stated?


My viewpoint has not changed. Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS.

However, I am not opposed to hearing new information on the science and approaching the issue with an open, yet critical, mind.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> What you also forget, or ignore, is when relative humidity reaches a certain point, water vapor precipitates. CO2 conversion is dependent upon biological activity which has a limitation.
> Anthropogenic processes exceed the natural balance of CO2 in our environment, causing an increase in concentrations over and above what nature provides.
> And scientific data shows a rate of increasing concentrations.
> 
> Precipitation maintains a balance of water vapor but since there is no natural means to balance excessive CO2, concentrations increase as does it's ability to increase warming.


Now this is really good information Johnny, and I pondered over those findings for awhile myself. My concern is that the findings do not take into account the cyclic nature of the Earth's warming/cooling cycles. If I recall correctly, there was a significant, and more drastic, warming period during the Medieval Period, which cannot be attributed to the massive introduction of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere that we are seeing today.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon



> That may be true; but, the presumed "tipping point" is based upon a man-made data set that is entered into a computer to develop a "computer model." Additionally, the data sets supporting the model seems to change every year, or so, making the "tipping point" a moving target. Furthermore, the models and reports concerning climate change have been found to use questionable tactics where data appears to have been cherry-picked, actively omitted, and/or manipulated to not contradict with the global warming theory. Here are a few articles on that topic:
> https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/


A theorized tipping point is determined by computer modeling.
Models do get better and more accurate as more is known of climatic dynamics.
Of course.
But that does not deny the concept of tipping points.
But you do through sophistry.

As far as Friedrich Karl Ewert goes, there is plenty of rebuttal showing how he cherry picked weather cycles, ignored data smoothing, and adjustment for calibration by calling it 'tampering'.
And it should be noted, Ewert was a geologist, not a climatologist. But even as such, he should have known that limiting events with in narrow time frames was intellectually dishonest.
The graphed increase of global temperatures is not a straight line slope .
Taking cherry picked 'snapshots' is not representative of climate. Only the short term variations within a time reference.
All said, one only has to observe that there has been accelerated melt in most glaciers, high mountains, the Arctic and now the Antarctic.

Need more? To the credibility of Ewert, which becomes more apparent in my last comment on him, It was the biased alt-right, fascist media of Breitbart introducing Ewert while a majority of scientists acknowledge the concept and activity of global warming.
'Ewert' was commentary suitable for denial usuary.
There are others doing the same.

One or two people, promoting an agenda seldom provide much more than their own bias.

That Goddard/NASA and NOAA have faked data is an old argument. Nothing new about it.
And explained in the past.



> Not a pertinent point; but, deserving of a response.
> 
> My original post in this thread simply noted some of the objections overheard from many individuals that do not give credence to the global warming theory. I never stated that these were my beliefs and openly stated that the viewpoints were made with varying levels of thought processes. .


But you posted it anyway as a representation of denial.



> As a bit of personal advice, you may want to avoid speaking on the behalf of individuals that does not share your viewpoint, as that practice is neither becoming, nor professional


I think you are confused.

*" You are only getting whiny as your lack of constructive participation becomes obvious. " *

That was my comment. I see nothing about implying it's an opinion of anyone else's.
But it is rather obvious from time t time, Jack.
You seem to be doing right now.

BTW....Ewert is well known in Germany for his association with the
European Institute for Climate and Energy.
It was difficult checking out this guy because he's not very prolific in the scientific community.

I had to get this info from a translation into English from the German Wikipedia site.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europäisches_Institut_für_Klima_und_Energie

Note: European Institute for Climate and Energy is not a scientific entity, it's a political entity.


> an association that is described by independent voices from science and the press as the center of the politically active, organized Klimaleugnerszene ( translation: Denial of Manmade Global Warming ) in Germany.


You just posted commentary of a denier as if it was a search for truth.










Trumptonian logic. Fake facts are facts. A lie is as good as the truth.

You've done this before.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> My viewpoint has not changed. Man-made Global Warming - Mostly BS.
> 
> However, I am not opposed to hearing new information on the science and approaching the issue with an open, yet critical, mind.


You are free to believe what you want.

But when you post distortions and propaganda from the fascist alt right, don't be surprised when you are challenged.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Now this is really good information Johnny, and I pondered over those findings for awhile myself. My concern is that the findings do not take into account the cyclic nature of the Earth's warming/cooling cycles. If I recall correctly, there was a significant, and more drastic, warming period during the Medieval Period, which cannot be attributed to the massive introduction of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere that we are seeing today.


Again with the nonsense.



> cyclic nature of the Earth's warming/cooling cycles.


That is an issue of geological periods of time ranging from hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years, not short term ages involving centuries.



> If I recall correctly, there was a significant, and more drastic, warming period during the Medieval Period,


You don't recall correctly.
There was a warming period and a regional cooling period that graphed out as if the warming was extreme, if you only took a biased 'snapshot' of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age










The differences between slopes in graphing are drastically different depending the date where you start the slope and it's very easy to misrepresent the event often called The Little Ice Age and what followed.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ..........
> 
> .........
> Furthermore, the models and reports concerning climate change have been found to use questionable tactics where data appears to have been cherry-picked, actively omitted, and/or manipulated to not contradict with the global warming theory. Here are a few articles on that topic:
> https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive-new-climate-data-fraud/


I've noticed you seem to quote questionable sources.
So I decided to check out the background of your 'authoritative' source in my free time.
No doubt you'll call it fake news ( LOL! ) but here are some interesting finds.

https://www.desmogblog.com/principia-scientific-international
briefly:



> Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas.
> 
> The PSI website says the organization is "for everyone who supports the traditions [sic] scientific method against the rise of sinister and secretive government funded 'post normal science'."
> 
> Principia Scientific reports that one of their "proudest endeavors is the ongoing support given to world-leading independent climatologist, Dr Tim Ball," who is also a founding member and former chairman of PCI.


So, who is this founding member and former chairman of PCI, Dr. Tim Ball, you might wonder?

Well, he does have a Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
Not only is he controversial and biased, he's even misrepresented his credentials.


> Ball has spoken twice at The Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, where he was presented as a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.[39][40][41] However, critics point out that Ball was a professor of geography, not climatology, and that the University of Winnipeg has never had a climatology department.


And that's just a tip of the 'ice burg'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball#Controversies_and_lawsuits

Way too much to copy and paste, and yet incredibly interesting and destructive to his credibility.

Next up
John O'Sullivan, CEO and founding member of PCI.
Description:
https://www.desmogblog.com/john-o-sullivan


> John O'Sullivan is a UK-based climate denialist blogger, writer and the sole active director of Principia Scientific International - a membership group promoting fringe views on climate change science and role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. O'Sullivan, a former school teacher, claims the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide is unproven and that human-caused climate change is a "fraud".


Blogger John even has his own personal blog ( big shocker seeing he's a blogger  )

https://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/

And of course he gives space to another PCI friend, Canadian astrophysicist and climate analyst Joseph Postma, another denier whose scientific credibility is skewered here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html

So what are Joe's qualifications as a climate analyst?
He claims his work has been peer reviewed
Even lists his papers on his blog site.

https://climateofsophistry.com/2012...joe-postma-the-climate-denier-list-sophistry/

But none of them have anything to do with climate or it's analysis.

I did, however, find this link that questioned the integrity of his blog:
https://theskepticjournal.wordpress...-hacks-accounts-of-commenters-who-expose-him/


> Joseph E. Postma is a climate change denier. He uses his master's in astrophysics to try to convince others to trust his authority. However, Postma has never been able to pass peer review in any legitimate scientific journal regarding anything he has written about climate change. The only place he has been able to post his ideas are to Principia Scientific, which is a website created by Tim Ball, a climate change denier.
> 
> Along the way, Postma engaged in some extremely dishonest behavior, eventually commenting using my username to agree with him. Yes, Postma posed as me to make it look like he was correct and that I was agreeing with him. I was also blocked from commenting any further, so that I would not be allowed to point this out.


I could go on, but your source already looks so disreputable I don't think I need to


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> .................
> However, I am not opposed to hearing new information on the science and approaching the issue with an open, yet critical, mind.


The problem seems to be the information sources you embrace.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> The problem seems to be the information sources you embrace.


Probably not the case; but, I must give credit to your excellent ability to conduct character assassinations when a viewpoint is contrary to your thought processes. 

Back onto the science of this issue, since, that is really what is at debate here. My surely basic understanding of Global Warming is that greenhouse gasses (pollutants) pumped into the atmosphere absorb radiation that would otherwise escape into space, and the trapped radiation causes the Earth to warm-up at an unnatural rate. Fair enough on the surface; however, when you look at the global temperatures over a much larger period of time you will see that the _rapid increase_ concern is nothing that is unique. In fact, if anything, the Earth is currently on the cooler side when a historical comparison is conducted.









http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

So, the science behind global warming is questionable; but, we ALL remain responsible for taking care of our planet regardless of the science.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> You don't recall correctly.
> There was a warming period and a regional cooling period that graphed out as if the warming was extreme, if you only took a biased 'snapshot' of it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


Oh I almost forgot to address the Hockey Stick type graph. Did some research on this one and found out that this graph was produced by first taking historical temperature projections gathered by analyzing Tree Ring data and then added current surface level temperatures (creating the hockey stick). This was referred to as Mike's Trick by the graph creators which was obtained from documents released under the EU FOIA laws. Unfortunately, when the raw data from this report was finally released, it showed no such hockey stick affect and a significantly different finding. This may be old news; but, it is still relevant as to why many people inherently distrust the global warming narrative.









ttps://www.bing.com/images/detail/search?iss=VSI&form=CHROMI&selectedindex=0&id=6C06FD6A574244851A3D324DCC045E1F3EEC4452&ccid=mLePjIzq&simid=607989573137795213&thid=OIP.mLePjIzq0whJn_enmEXIrwHaFn&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com%2F2014%2F04%2Fclip_image004_thumb3.png&exph=456&expw=602&pivotparams=imgurl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fin-this-together.com%252Fimg%252FIPCC%252FIPCC013.png%253Fx43690&vt=0&eim=1,2,6


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Probably not the case; but, I must give credit to your excellent ability to conduct character assassinations when a viewpoint is contrary to your thought processes.
> ......................


No, the issue is one of you habitually posting sources as if they have an authoritative value.
Crap from crap is mostly crap.

And yes, I do know how to do searches on the validity of authors.
So far you have only been able to google up questionable arguments from biased sources.

And now we come to Joanne Nova that is associated with Questacon - the National Science and Technology Centre in Australia.
Of note, Questacon recieves funding from .....the Shell Oil Company

Joanne----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova

Connection to Shell-----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Questacon_Science_Circus#Questacon_Science_Circus

An even closer connection ----> https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova

What are Joanne's qualifications as a climate expert?
------> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#Education
Whoops.....none!
So what makes her an expert at deciding whose claims are pertinent to climate change?
-------> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanne_Nova#Views_on_global_warming
Yeah, she's a blogger 
She's a blogger 

And then there is this:
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova

Yes, I think I'm pretty good at exposing the fakes, you post as authoritative sources.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Oh I almost forgot to address the Hockey Stick type graph. ..................


Old argument.
McIntyre and McKitrick's arguments were unfounded and even with a small correction, Mann's tree ring work was found relevant and the hockey stick graph remained as a valid representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Your post is an old argument and you are only presenting what was eventually to be found invalid.

There are various sources other than Mann's Tree Ring data that support a 'hockey stick' graph
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ..................
> 
> Back onto the science of this issue, since, that is really what is at debate here. My surely basic understanding of Global Warming is that greenhouse gasses (pollutants) pumped into the atmosphere absorb radiation that would otherwise escape into space, and the trapped radiation causes the Earth to warm-up at an unnatural rate. Fair enough on the surface; however, when you look at the global temperatures over a much larger period of time you will see that the _rapid increase_ concern is nothing that is unique. In fact, if anything, the Earth is currently on the cooler side when a historical comparison is conducted.
> 
> View attachment 267561
> 
> http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
> 
> So, the science behind global warming is questionable; but, we ALL remain responsible for taking care of our planet regardless of the science.


Did you bother to read the title of that graph?
( hint: it starts with 'Greenland' )
Are you aware the topic is global warming and climate change on a global scale?

You posted the ice core data of Greenland.
That's called cherry picking 
Do you think global warming is uniform all over the globe?
It isn't.

Remember I commented earlier about the dynamics of energy distribution?
If you had thought to consider why the discrepancy before denying the science behind global warming, you would have stumbled onto:

*Warm sea currents caused the melting of Greenland's ice *
http://sciencenordic.com/warm-sea-currents-caused-melting-greenland’s-ice

Global warming is not a constant on a global scale. There can even be temporary cold spots.
The Little Ice age, for instance. And the reason included a change in ocean circulation and volcanic activity.

It's all about physics. Energy distribution, Energy retention. Not political parties as the current Trumptonians ( and you  ) try to argue.

And it should be noted a considerable period of warming caused by human activity isn't included on that graph. The graph doesn't start at 1950, It starts at 1950- 95. And that missing period is where accelerated global warming awareness becomes apparent.


----------



## Johnny b

( sigh! )


I wonder what Lanmaster is up to these days?


----------



## Johnny b

The government site I've been linking to

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

currently has a certificate issue. The time is incorrect.
I suggest not opening the site until the problem is corrected.
Could be innocent or not.
I won't be posting info from it until the problem is corrected.


----------



## Johnny b

Liberals like to focus on the last several hundred years of climate, that is the time span where man has had more influence.
The 'Rightwingers' like to extend the time frame to periods where the global environment was different to today, expecting and demanding the physical attributes of current climate change are the same.

But what has really happened in the geological past?

A bit of 'history' .
( I suspect the usual cast of 'characters' will cherry pick to prove their position, but this is they way legitimate scientists describe Earth's climate history. Is it complete? Not likely, but good summations. )

* What's the hottest Earth's ever been? *
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

* What's the hottest Earth has been "lately"? *
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what’s-hottest-earth-has-been-“lately”

Too much to copy and paste all of those links.

But this stands out in the last link:



> Natural variability can explain much of the temperature variation since the end of the last ice age, resulting from factors such as changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis. Over the past century, though, global average temperatures have "risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels" in the past 11,300 years, the 2013 study authors explain. Over this same period, emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have increased.
> 
> Given the uncertainty inherent in estimating ancient temperatures, the scientists conservatively concluded that the last decade has brought global average temperatures higher than they have been for at least 75 percent of the last 11,300 years. The recent increase in global average temperature is so abrupt compared to the rest of the time period that when the scientists make a graph of the data, the end of the line is nearly vertical.


----------



## Johnny b

So, what else is an element of climate change other than CO2 generation by oxidizing petroleum products?
It's not only about smoke stacks and tail pipe emissions.

Deforestation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_and_climate_change


----------



## crjdriver

Climate change is real however the cause of climate change is not what is portrayed in the popular media. The Earth has been both much hotter AND much colder in the past. The hottest known period was approx 65 million years ago. Sea levels were much higher [the Middle East was a rain forest that is why there is so much oil under ground]
When I discuss this subject, I always ask what caused that climate change since there was no one burning any fossil fuel??? The answer is the exact same thing causing this climate change; variations in the output of the Sun. The insolation [incoming solar radiation] ebbs and flows; the Sun does not output a constant amount of energy. When the Sun's output increases, seas warm, polar ice caps retreat, sea levels rise, etc. When the out put decreases, the opposite occurs; sea levels fall, the polar ice caps extend, etc.

This is a natural process and the idea that we should be messing with it is [IMO] the epitome of arrogance.

BTW I learned this when studying astronomy in college [back in the mid 1970s]
At the same time, other so called experts were telling us that the increase in CO2 gas would cause global cooling. Not kidding they really said that.


----------



## Johnny b

Of interest, a way scientists can determine relative CO2 levels in the geologic past and climatic change at the same time.

*Ancient fossils and modern climate change: The work of Jennifer McElwain*

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mcelwain_01

There is much to read and continues on for 4 pages.

And note, this is not the work of bloggers quoting bloggers.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> .............
> When I discuss this subject, I always ask what caused that climate change since there was no one burning any fossil fuel??? The answer is the exact same thing causing this climate change; variations in the output of the Sun....................


That is only one element.
The change in the biosphere ( especially the coming of plants) over geologic periods is another variable.
Volcanic activity another.

Man's activities are a small addition, but that addition is enough, as shown in current temp records, to slowly speed up chemical/physical reactions involved in climate change.


----------



## Wino

Anyone not believing man contributes to global warming / environment / climate change, no matter how infinitesimal that contribution may be, is full of Trump. You would think they would try not to take a dump on it. I'm thinkin' we need to be gobsmacked by a meteor to rectify the situation, cause apparently, too many dips believe we need do nothing. Karma will win out over stupidity.


----------



## valis

Karma doesnt figure into this currently but science sure does. At the current levels of CO2 in the atmposhpere we may jusr be along for the ride now regardless.


----------



## valis

Here is an excellent article on the Keeling Curve....

https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters


----------



## Johnny b

I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out for a short while.
Not feeling so good at the moment.

I'll be back.


----------



## valis

holding you to that Johnny....you had best be back. hope you feel better.




(shakes fist at cloud)

DAMN YOU TRUMP!!!!


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> And yes, I do know how to do searches on the validity of authors.
> So far you have only been able to google up questionable arguments from biased sources.
> 
> And now we come to Joanne Nova that is associated with Questacon - the National Science and Technology Centre in Australia.
> Of note, Questacon recieves funding from .....the Shell Oil Company


So, the counter argument here is that most liberals support the man-made global warming theory that is championed by the IPCC, which was started by the United Nations, which supports the concept of globalism. Additionally, liberals primarily constitute the hierarchy of higher academia within most developed countries. Therefore, not very surprising that Wikipedia and Academia label most individuals who publicly question man-made global warming as frauds and idiots. Kind of like how Trump calls anyone with a dissenting opinion a fraud and an idiot, and many supports believe the words without question.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Your post is an old argument and you are only presenting what was eventually to be found invalid.
> 
> There are various sources other than Mann's Tree Ring data that support a 'hockey stick' graph
> https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/


Ok, so I went to look at what McIntyre's response was to Mann's tree ring report. Not surprisingly, McIntyre had many concerns and questioned the overall validity of the subsequent findings. There is a lot of technical information within the report but the introductory synopsis pretty much sums it up.

https://climateaudit.org/2018/10/24/pages2k-north-american-tree-ring-proxies/


> The PAGES (2017) North American network consists entirely of tree rings. Climate Audit readers will recall the unique role of North American stripbark bristlecone chronologies in Mann et al 1998 and Mann et al 2008 (and in the majority of IPCC multiproxy reconstructions). In today's post, I'll parse the PAGES2K North American tree ring networks in both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017) from two aspects:
> 
> 
> even though PAGES (2013) was held out as the product of superb quality control, more than 80% of the North American tree ring proxies of PAGES (2013) were rejected in 2017, replaced by an almost exactly equal number of tree ring series, the majority of which date back to the early 1990s and which would have been available not just to PAGES (2013), but Mann et al 2008 and even Mann et al 1998;
> the one constant in these large networks are the stripbark bristlecone/foxtail chronologies criticized at Climate Audit since its inception. *All 20(!) *stripbark chronologies isolated by Mann's CENSORED directory re-appear not only in Mann et al (2008), but in PAGES (2013). In effect, the paleoclimate community, in apparent solidarity with Mann, ostentatiously flouted the 2006 NAS Panel recommendation to "avoid" stripbark chronologies in temperature reconstructions. In both PAGES (2013) and PAGES (2017), despite ferocious data mining, just as in Mann et al 1998, there is no Hockey Stick shape without the series in Mann's CENSORED directory.


----------



## valis

Where on Earth is this coming from? Where in Johnny's post that you quoted were liberals, or ANY politics whatsoever? He just called you out on an obviously biased BLOGGER you had cited.

There are no liberals or politics in his statement. 

For what it is worth, people who doubt anthropilogical climate change ARE idiots, but at least, as I stated earlier, it is more or less moot 

It is what it is. All the denying and ignoring wont make it go away. Low laying nations are evacuating; people that grew rice last year now grow shrimp. Ignoring the science never makes it go away.


----------



## valis

@Chawbacon...I wrote this a few years back, it addresses a few of your issues and has the sources. Hope this helps explain where I am coming from.

https://timothypierce.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/on-global-warming-co2-and-methane/


----------



## Chawbacon

Hey Valis,

I was simply noting the obvious bias that academia and many liberals have for anyone that disagrees with their opinions. This bias regularly manifests as character assignations in the media (legacy or social). As Johnny noted, the source is biased; however, bias manifests in both directions. 

I agree that science should not be ignored; but, the science on man-made global warming is still a hypothesis. If it were settled science, there would not be such a push back on said science (minus the flat earth supporters).


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> @Chawbacon...I wrote this a few years back, it addresses a few of your issues and has the sources. Hope this helps explain where I am coming from.
> 
> https://timothypierce.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/on-global-warming-co2-and-methane/


Thanks for the link Valis,

I will have to give it a read later. Have to go put out some fires.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> Hey Valis,
> 
> I was simply noting the obvious bias that academia and many liberals have for anyone that disagrees with their opinions. This bias regularly manifests as character assignations in the media (legacy or social). As Johnny noted, the source is biased; however, bias manifests in both directions.
> 
> I agree that science should not be ignored; but, the science on man-made global warming is still a hypothesis. If it were settled science, there would not be such a push back on said science (minus the flat earth supporters).


stating that a fact is a hypothesis is, literally, lunacy. 2 and 2 still equal four regardless of how much I believe they equal Buick. The facts are there; find them and take the blinders off.

yes, there are biases. but always, ALWAYS, science trumps those biases.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> Thanks for the link Valis,
> 
> I will have to give it a read later. Have to go put out some fires.


Looking forward to your response and good luck on the fires.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> So, the counter argument here is that most liberals support the man-made global warming theory that is championed by the IPCC, which was started by the United Nations, which supports the concept of globalism. Additionally, liberals primarily constitute the hierarchy of higher academia within most developed countries. Therefore, not very surprising that Wikipedia and Academia label most individuals who publicly question man-made global warming as frauds and idiots. Kind of like how Trump calls anyone with a dissenting opinion a fraud and an idiot, and many supports believe the words without question.





> So, the counter argument here is that most liberals support the man-made global warming theory that is championed by the IPCC, which was started by the United Nations, which supports the concept of globalism.


Counter argument to what?
There are non-liberals that see global warming from the scientific pov rather than play politics.
That is my position.
This discussion is and should focus on the science, not Leftist Liberal or current Fascist Rightwinger politics.



> Additionally, liberals primarily constitute the hierarchy of higher academia within most developed countries.


In the Liberal Arts, yes.
In the sciences, no.
This is your own political bias distorting reality.
Biases in the sciences cause distorted perceptions of reality and false conclusions.
Does it happen? Yes, it does. And because the Scientific Method is a guide and science is based upon skepticism and challenge, biases become corrected. Politics not so much.

That was the fallacy in the Lysenko model, which appears to be your position, politics is a determining factor of physics and nature.



> Therefore, not very surprising that Wikipedia and Academia label most individuals who publicly question man-made global warming as frauds and idiots.



See how easy that was to deny scientific realities LOL!
You embrace bloggers and frauds on the Internet that suit your own political allegiance.
( Remember your fraudulent claims WMD existed in Iraq using falsified news accounts? )
You appear to believe anything that reinforces your political position. The idea in Trumptonian times is that 'alternate facts' are facts, the 'truth' isn't truth.
Sophistry.



> Kind of like how Trump calls anyone with a dissenting opinion a fraud and an idiot, and many supports believe the words without question.


And yet, here you are, quoting frauds in a scientific debate, as if they represent 'truth'.
I present your sources for the frauds they are and you try to turn the discussion into a political concern.

Shame on you 
You aren't the first at this web site to try this 
Probably not the last, either.

So, I'll be spending some time on your 'authoritative' sources


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> holding you to that Johnny....you had best be back. hope you feel better.


Thanks, Tim.

It's that old problem come back but from a new vector.
I'll be going into radiation therapy in the near future.
Nerves are playing havoc.

I'll be in and out of TSG for a while.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Ok, so I went to look at what McIntyre's response was to Mann's tree ring report. Not surprisingly, McIntyre had many concerns and questioned the overall validity of the subsequent findings. There is a lot of technical information within the report but the introductory synopsis pretty much sums it up.
> 
> ..................................


The problem with his repetitive argument is my previous post showing other researchers finding similar data results as Mann, or didn't you bother to follow up or even read the graph I posted?
Did you even bother to read the Wiki article?

Refresher:


> Barton and U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield requested Edward Wegman to set up a team of statisticians to investigate, and they supported McIntyre and McKitrick's view that there were statistical failings, although they did not quantify whether there was any significant effect. They also produced an extensive network analysis which has been discredited by expert opinion and found to have issues of plagiarism. Arguments against the MBH studies were reintroduced as part of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, but dismissed by eight independent investigations.
> 
> More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.


There are links and footnotes in the above in support of the conclusion.
Repeating the same attack only invites the same conclusion.
In the realm of science, 'alternate facts' are not facts. There is data, and from data is derived a consensus of opinion on what facts exist until new data is found.
Politics has nothing to do with the validity of scientific fact finding. It is either valid or not valid.

.....................

So, who is Steve McIntyre?
Let's start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre#Early_life_and_education


> McIntyre, a native of Ontario, attended the University of Toronto Schools, a university-preparatory school in Toronto, finishing first in the national high school mathematics competition of 1965.[2] He went on to study mathematics at the University of Toronto and graduated with a bachelor of science degree in 1969.


So, he knows scientific lingo, but he's not majored in needed elements for climate discovery, like physics, meteorology, climatology or even geology.


> McIntyre then obtained a Commonwealth Scholarship to read philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, graduating in 1971.[1][2] Although he was offered a graduate scholarship, McIntyre decided not to pursue studies in mathematical economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


Odd. There he is following a Liberal course of studies, the type you abhor.

And to top it off, he takes his 'perversions' into the realm of business.


> McIntyre worked for 30 years in the mineral business,[2] the last part of these in the hard-rock mineral exploration as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.


Obviously not a friend of the environment (  ) and not in the direct realm of climate studies, either.
More, which will have a followup later.


> He was a policy analyst for several years for the governments of Ontario and of Canada.[4] He was the president and founder of Northwest Exploration Company Limited and a director of its parent company, Northwest Explorations Inc. When Northwest Explorations Inc. was taken over in 1998 by CGX Resources Inc. to form the oil and gas exploration company CGX Energy Inc., McIntyre ceased being a director. McIntyre was a strategic advisor for CGX in 2000 through 2003.[5] McIntyre says that during his career his skills in statistical analysis enabled him to analyse mineral prospecting data and out-bet his rivals.


Much of McIntyre's early history is in mining.
But CGX has involvement in oil

https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile/OYL.V


> CGX Energy Inc., incorporated on February 21, 1994, is an oil and gas exploration company. The Company is engaged in exploring for hydrocarbons in Guyana, South America. The Company operates through petroleum and natural gas exploration in Guyana segment. The Company holds an interest in approximately three Petroleum Agreements (known as the Corentyne, Berbice and Demerara Blocks) covering over 3.3 million gross acres (approximately 3 million net acres) offshore and onshore Guyana. The Company's subsidiaries include CGX Resources Inc. (CGX Resources), ON Energy Inc. (ON Energy), GCIE Holdings Limited, Grand Canal Industrial Estates Inc. (Grand Canal) and CGX Energy Management Corp. The Company conducts its exploration activities in Guyana through its subsidiaries. The Company's offshore concessions include Corentyne and Demerara. Its onshore concessions include Berbice.
> 
> The original Corentyne petroleum agreement (PA) covers approximately 2.9 million acres under over two separate Petroleum Prospecting Licenses (PPLs). The Company has a new Corentyne PA and PPL covering approximately 6,210 square kilometers. The Corentyne PPL is owned by CGX. The Company also has the Demerara PA and PPL covering approximately 3,970 square kilometers, which was a subset of the Company's original Corentyne PA. The Demerara PPL is owned by CGX. The Government of Guyana issued a new Berbice PA and PPL to ON Energy, which consists of former Berbice PA and the onshore portion of the former Corentyne PPL, covering 3,290 square kilometers. The Berbice PPL is owned by CGX.


So....not only does McIntyre have interests in climate issues from a mining pov, he has had involvement in the petroleum industry as well, that obviously creates a bias from a business model pov.

More background:

https://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Steve_McIntyre
And this stood out:


> McIntyre is known to sometimes use the pseudonym Nigel Persaud


An alias he hides behind 

For some fun reading, google Nigel Persaud + Mcintyre


Yeah, Stevo is a really good authoritative source for climatology and global warming. 
No bias there ( NOT! )


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ...
> 
> As Johnny noted, the source is biased; however, bias manifests in both directions.
> 
> ............................


So far, I haven't seen any posting from you that defines the bias of specific scientific articles being posted relevant to global warming.

What do you think 'bias' is? Can you provide and define a specific case of bias in the scientific reports posted in this thread?

All I read in your posts are denials claiming bias and google searches oblivious to later corrections. Your authoritative sources have been a joke.
That is a flagrant bias.

That's very easy to do and demonstrates not much more than the Trumptonian version of Lysenko's fallacy. Political doctrine trumps scientific facts.
That didn't work for Trump's pals in what is now Russia, what makes you think it would work in the US?

Or are you going to typically avoid responding to the tough issues?


----------



## Wino

Johnny b said:


> Thanks, Tim.
> 
> It's that old problem come back but from a new vector.
> I'll be going into radiation therapy in the near future.
> Nerves are playing havoc.
> 
> I'll be in and out of TSG for a while.


You take care of your self. Get some CBD's or something "stronger". I can't fill your shoes, but I'll save your seat for your return. Best to you and yours.

You asked earlier where LM may be - I suspect after his initial disgust of being transferred to Texas has by now worn off since he's living in Trumpian Utopia aka Texas.


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> Looking forward to your response and good luck on the fires.


Howdy Valis,

That was a very good article and I enjoyed the read. You are definitely correct that a significant melting of the permafrost could be disastrous for the planet! You know, although we may disagree on the premise supporting the underlying hypothesis, it is apparent that we share a common concern with too much CO2 being pumped into our atmosphere.

My biggest problem with the man made global warming theory (level of impact) is concerning the original paper that floated the theory on the subject and the subsequently produced Hockey Stick Graph. The Hockey Stick Graph was proven to have been created with manipulated data, which was recently said to be proven correct by other scientists, and then McIntyre points out that essentially the same mistakes have been made on the new reports via data omissions (and that without the data omissions there is no hockey stick effect). All very confusing.

My political concern is that the IPCC, being the organization that provided the main initial thrust towards the research of the man-made global warming theory and the subsequent recommendations/directives for nations to cut back CO2 emissions, has had to repeatedly push back the end of the world tipping point predictions extrapolated from the IPCC reports. So why should I believe the latest end of the world narrative, when the others predictions have failed to come true?

Now, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want; but, I do not trust any government agency (International or local, with our current U.S. Government included) to do what is right, without some of the individuals in charge attempting to line their pockets along the way. If significant man made global warming was truly the nightmare scenario portrayed by the U.N., China would be facing world wide isolation, debilitating economic sanctions, and would be facing a mounting threat of military force from the U.N. (never see this in the news). Instead the U.N. (and the news) places the majority of the blame and the majority of the onus on the U.S, with the expectation that the U.S. has to help the rest of the world pay for their CO2 reduction efforts. To me, the entire subject appears to have been politicized and monetized.

All that aside, every nation on this planet needs to reduce their CO2 emissions; because, none of us have an alternate planet on which to reside.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Thanks, Tim.
> 
> It's that old problem come back but from a new vector.
> I'll be going into radiation therapy in the near future.
> Nerves are playing havoc.
> 
> I'll be in and out of TSG for a while.


Sorry to hear that Johnny. I pray that you have a quick and easy recovery.


----------



## Johnny b

( SIGH! ) 



Chawbacon said:


> .............
> .........................
> 
> My biggest problem with the man made global warming theory (level of impact) is concerning the original paper that floated the theory on the subject and the subsequently produced Hockey Stick Graph. The Hockey Stick Graph was proven to have been created with manipulated data, which was recently said to be proven correct by other scientists, and then McIntyre points out that essentially the same mistakes have been made on the new reports via data omissions (and that without the data omissions there is no hockey stick effect). All very confusing.


Not confusing at all. Nigel (  ) merely keeps repeating the same argument as if it's a new issue.



> My political concern is that the IPCC, being the organization that provided the main initial thrust towards the research of the man-made global warming theory and the subsequent recommendations/directives for nations to cut back CO2 emissions, has had to repeatedly push back the end of the world tipping point predictions extrapolated from the IPCC reports. So why should I believe the latest end of the world narrative, when the others predictions have failed to come true?


For some reason you still believe politics trumps reality. Lysenko did the same for the USSR. And it was a calamity for their agriculture and ability to feed their peoples.
The laws of nature do not give a damn whether a society is governed by rightwingers, leftwingers, Communists or dictators.
Politics is not a means to study reality, science is.



> Now, call me a conspiracy theorist if you want; but, I do not trust any government agency (International or local, with our current U.S. Government included) to do what is right, without some of the individuals in charge attempting to line their pockets along the way. If significant man made global warming was truly the nightmare scenario portrayed by the U.N., China would be facing world wide isolation, debilitating economic sanctions, and would be facing a mounting threat of military force from the U.N. (never see this in the news). Instead the U.N. (and the news) places the majority of the blame and the majority of the onus on the U.S, with the expectation that the U.S. has to help the rest of the world pay for their CO2 reduction efforts. To me, the entire subject appears to have been politicized and monetized.


And yet you trust the crowd that currently benefits the greatest financially, the crowd that fronts for ageing industries doing the damage, and arguing to continue in order to maintain profitability rather than adopt new technologies and adapt to a changing environment. To ignore the potential of scientific progress, which btw, offers greater profitability in the future, but only to those that embrace it.
Science can point out problems and needs. Science can provide the new technologies needed.
But your argument above consistently goes back to claiming political decisions provide the only solutions to problems of a scientific nature.
As I keep pointing out, it didn't work for the USSR, why would it work for the USofA?



> All that aside, every nation on this planet needs to reduce their CO2 emissions; because, none of us have an alternate planet on which to reside.


How does that statement equate to your above denials?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Sorry to hear that Johnny. I pray that you have a quick and easy recovery.


Thank you.
Nerves are the big issue right now.
I'll know more tomorrow.

Hope your Christmas wasn't too warm


----------



## valis

> The laws of nature do not give a damn whether a society is governed by rightwingers, leftwingers, Communists or dictators.


pegged it square.


----------



## Johnny b

Since energy production is an issue that runs parallel to the problems of global warming, here is an example of political ethics run amok when scientific advancement is curtailed by a President bent on maintaining inefficient usage of coal along with supporting trade wars.
And it should be noted that Obama probably wouldn't have supported it in the US either, being anti-nuclear himself.

* Bill Gates' nuclear venture hits snag amid U.S. restrictions on China deals: WSJ *

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...restrictions-on-china-deals-wsj-idUSKCN1OV1S5

So....what is lost at this time?
This:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower



> This allows the benefits of a closed fuel cycle without the expense and proliferation-risk of enrichment and reprocessing plants typically required to get them. Enough fuel for between 40 and 60 years of operation could be in the reactor from the beginning. The reactor could be buried below ground, where it could run for an estimated 100 years.[5] TerraPower described the concept of its main reactor design as a "Generation IV, liquid sodium-cooled fast reactor".[6]
> 
> By using depleted uranium as fuel, the new reactor type could reduce stockpiles from uranium enrichment.[7] TerraPower notes that the US hosts 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium and that 8 metric tons could power 2.5 million homes for a year.[8] Some reports claim that the high fuel efficiency of TWRs, combined with the ability to use uranium recovered from river or sea water, means enough fuel is available to generate electricity for 10 billion people at US per capita consumption levels for million-year time-scales.[9]


To make America great, we need to innovate and be involved in doing great things, not just signing ball caps and pretending solutions exist in polarized politics and it's extremists.


----------



## Wino

I recommend N. Korea or Iran or Pakistan or Afghanistan or Venezuela or Mexico or Russia or Saudi Arabia, or Taiwan (that should go over bigly with China) or Mar-a-Largo . 2019 is the year Orange Puke will show just how crazy he can be - buckle up, it's going to be turbulent.


----------



## Johnny b

* Antarctic ice melts to January record low *

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...lts-record-low-january-scientists/2481706002/


----------



## Johnny b

* Antarctic ice melting 6 times faster than it did in '80s *

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ntarctic-ice-melting-accelerating/2575410002/



> The ice in Antarctica is melting six times faster than it did just 40 years ago, a new study reports.
> 
> This dramatic acceleration of the ice loss is a clear indication of human-caused climate change, the study authors said.


----------



## Chawbacon

So.... Was that big snow storm that was supposed to hit Atlanta predicted because of Global Warming, or did it NOT happen because of Global Warming? 

Poking the bear.


----------



## Johnny b

You are confused.
Weather is not the same as climate.


----------



## Chawbacon

You are correct. I am confused. I do not understand how Global Warming Believers use _weather_ to support their arguments; but, at the same time claim that Climate Change Deniers cannot use the same _weather_ as as a counter argument.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> You are correct. I am confused. I do not understand how Global Warming Believers use _weather_ to support their arguments; but, at the same time claim that Climate Change Deniers cannot use the same _weather_ as as a counter argument.


Of course.
You need to deny reality to support your political position, thus denying the discoveries through the scientific method.

I pity you


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Of course.
> You need to deny reality to support your political position, thus denying the discoveries through the scientific method.
> 
> I pity you


Now, now... We have been over this previously. The hypothesis/theory concerning significant man-made Global Warming has not been definitively proven.


----------



## Johnny b

You can deny all you want 
The data is there for you to argue with 

It's happening


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> Now, now... We have been over this previously. The hypothesis/theory concerning significant man-made Global Warming has not been definitively proven.


lol.....


----------



## Chawbacon

*Bomb cyclone' snow, wind impacts Midwest, Great Lakes*
https://preview.msn.com/en-us/weath...w-wind-impacts-midwest-great-lakes/ar-BBVPdhU

Hmmm.... MSN must be slipping. Not one comment about global warming. Not even a sniff on climate change! 
AND, I wonder why this is not on the website landing page as a significant weather event... Doesn't MSN have a responsibility to the public to make sure that innocent people in the path of this winter storm are adequately notified??? Oh yeah! This is not a hurricane, so it does not fit the narrative. My bad.

Well here are the highlights:


> ...hundreds of canceled flights at Denver International Airport,...
> 
> ...Hundreds of schools canceled classes in Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota,...
> 
> ...The Minnesota State Patrol said it had responded to more than 500 crashes statewide ...
> ...The National Weather Service reported that daily snowfall records had already fallen in La Crosse, Wausau and Green Bay....
> ...As much as 25 inches of snow had been reported in northeastern South Dakota, with snowfall forecast to continue into Friday in that state, Minnesota and southeastern North Dakota....
> ...Nearly 77,000 homes and business were without power across Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa and Michigan Thursday, according to PowerOutage.us....
> ...In southwest Minnesota, the National Weather Service said there could be half an inch of ice accumulations and winds up to 50 mph (80.46 kph)....
> ...The threat of severe weather will shift this weekend to southern states including Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas, including the cities of Houston, Dallas and New Orleans,...


----------



## Johnny b

Thanks for the weather stats, Mike 

I've often wondered how and why simple minds confuse the weather with climate.
And then I think about who got elected to the Oval Office and it all makes sense


----------



## Johnny b

BTW, the weather in southwest Ohio was warm and partly cloudy today with a high over 80 F.
But it will change. It always does


----------



## valis

This storm shows cyclonic formation over land. Last time I saw that was in Day After Tomorrow.

But climate change is a myth.

(covers ears and starts chanting)


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Thanks for the weather stats, Mike
> 
> I've often wondered how and why simple minds confuse the weather with climate.
> And then I think about who got elected to the Oval Office and it all makes sense


Yep... Simple Minds... Kind of how all the Global Warming believers shout "THE END IS NEAR" every time there are tornadic storm systems, hurricanes, droughts, or even the slightest perceived rise in sea level. 

I am much more inclined to believe the scientific research behind the attempts at proving the global warming theory. I am not yet convinced on that front; however, I still have an open mind.


----------



## valis

I am going to need a logical citation on that comment, and due to prior discussions, I know you cannot provide that.

I also know you will attempt to obfuscate the argument, and further still that you will evade discussion on your previous posts on this matter.

An open mind only goes so far. At some point in time you need to be held responsible for your views.

So....every climatologist I speak with states that anthropogenic climate change is occurring now. Please state why they are incorrect.

Thanks,

v


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Yep... Simple Minds... Kind of how all the Global Warming believers shout "THE END IS NEAR" every time there are tornadic storm systems, hurricanes, droughts, or even the slightest perceived rise in sea level.
> 
> I am much more inclined to believe the scientific research behind the attempts at proving the global warming theory. I am not yet convinced on that front; however, I still have an open mind.


LOL!

You watch and read way too much of Fox News for good mental health 

And the issue is not about convincing 'You', the issue is your denial in the face of facts.
Climate deniers and Sanders/AOC are actually of a shared mentality. Denial and distortion of facts for political purposes.

There is no more correctness to your position that weather equates to climate, than AOC's claim the world ends in 12 years because of climate change.

It's disgusting that this polarization demeans scientific investigation, and pragmatic approaches to the issue are buried by derision and politics.
That the current choices focus on ignoring the data or building a socialist world.
Both arguments are based on the lies of extremists.


----------



## Chawbacon

Hey Valis,

I will gladly elucidate a bit on these.



valis said:


> I am going to need a logical citation on that comment, and due to prior discussions, I know you cannot provide that.


 Instead of my listing thousands of references, feel free to review a plethora of videos, articles, blogs, tweets, etc... that occur after almost every major weather event in this century and you will find a multitude of articles from liberal media sources insinuating that Global Warming (often disguised with the alternate wording of Climate Change) was responsible for the weather event in part or whole. This is a very common narrative on social media also.

For some quick examples of the general Climate Change believers thought processes seen in the media though... Let's start with Hurricanes:

*Global warming boosted rainfall in recent hurricanes ..*.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/15/global...
*Rising Temperatures May Cause More Katrinas*
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130319-hurricane...

Now lets go for Tornadic events:

*Global Warming May Spawn More Southeast US Tornadoes*
https://www.livescience.com/49727-more-tornadoes-global-warming.html
*An Era of Tornadoes: How Global Warming Causes Wild Winds ...*
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/an-era...

And on to droughts:

*California Drought Is Made Worse by Global Warming .*..
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change...
*Droughts and wildfires: How global warming is drying up ...*
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171009123151.htm

Obviously, I do not need to provide links to sea level rise... Sigh.



valis said:


> I also know you will attempt to obfuscate the argument, and further still that you will evade discussion on your previous posts on this matter.


 Man... This sounds like my wife blaming me for something I said 15 years ago.  
Obfuscation and evasion are not my style Valis, however, I typically have limited time to devote to Techguy, so please understand that a non-answer on my part should not be viewed as an evasion. There are also the occasions where I have stated my opinion on a topic and simply do not see a need to reply with additional dialog. You see, I am looking for discussion on topics, not arguments; therefore, when blatant and unfounded accusations are levied, or when childish name calling becomes extensive, I tend to ignore those posts as nothing more than senseless blither. As for obfuscation... OK... sometimes; but, that is normally when I am deliberately poking the bear. 



valis said:


> An open mind only goes so far. At some point in time you need to be held responsible for your views.


Yeah... This is a dangerous premise here, which I am sure was unintentional on your part. After all, we all support freedom of speech here and understand that people are held accountable for actions, as opposed to being held accountable for thoughts.



valis said:


> So....every climatologist I speak with states that anthropogenic climate change is occurring now. Please state why they are incorrect.


 As I have repeatedly stated... I do believe that man affects the climate; however, I am not convinced that the science behind the assumption is sound. There are simply too many opposing scientific opinions on the actual impact of anthropogenic climate change for me to be convinced at this point in time. And again, I believe in keeping the planet clean for the basic reasons that humans need clean air, food, land, and water to survive on this planet.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> You are correct. I am confused. I do not understand how Global Warming Believers use _weather_ to support their arguments; but, at the same time claim that Climate Change Deniers cannot use the same _weather_ as as a counter argument.


I agree that you are confused


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> [edited for brevity)
> 
> Hey Valis,
> 
> I will gladly elucidate a bit on these.
> .......................
> For some quick examples of the general Climate Change believers thought processes seen in the media though... Let's start with Hurricanes:
> 
> As I have repeatedly stated... I do believe that man affects the climate; however, I am not convinced that the science behind the assumption is sound. There are simply too many opposing scientific opinions on the actual impact of anthropogenic climate change for me to be convinced at this point in time. And again, I believe in keeping the planet clean for the basic reasons that humans need clean air, food, land, and water to survive on this planet.





> Instead of my listing thousands of references, feel free to review a plethora of videos, articles, blogs, tweets, etc... that occur after almost every major weather event in this century and you will find a multitude of articles from liberal media sources insinuating that Global Warming (often disguised with the alternate wording of Climate Change) was responsible for the weather event in part or whole. This is a very common narrative on social media also.


Bloggers and youtube click bait do not make scientific authorities.
Why aren't you posting your 'evidence'/'proofs' or 'Alex Jones in general logical fallacies'?



> For some quick examples of the general Climate Change believers thought processes seen in the media though... Let's start with Hurricanes:


Mike, the discussion isn't about 'believers'. It's about the validity of the science that defines a problem you don't acknowledge.



> As I have repeatedly stated... I do believe that man affects the climate; however, I am not convinced that the science behind the assumption is sound.


Simply, you are confused.
You believe man affects the climate and at the same time claim it's a scientific assumption that's unconvincing.

Sir.....those are weasel words.



> wea·sel words
> noun
> plural noun: weasel words; noun: weasel word
> 
> words or statements that are intentionally ambiguous or misleading.


You can't logically believe something and yet deny it as a reality at the same time......:down:


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Bloggers and youtube click bait do not make scientific authorities.
> Why aren't you posting your 'evidence'/'proofs' or 'Alex Jones in general logical fallacies'?


I think you may have misunderstood the context of the response. Please deposit 25 cents to play again. 


Johnny b said:


> Mike, the discussion isn't about 'believers'. It's about the validity of the science that defines a problem you don't acknowledge.


Umm... I am not familiar with who Mike is... unless you are referring the the former heavy weight champion, or that little kid on the Life cereal commercials. 


Johnny b said:


> Simply, you are confused.
> You believe man affects the climate and at the same time claim it's a scientific assumption that's unconvincing.
> 
> Sir.....those are weasel words.


And here comes the name calling and insulting of any logical analysis when a dissenting voice is heard. So sad.


Johnny b said:


> You can't logically believe something and yet deny it as a reality at the same time......


And a deliberate attempt to misconstrue also... Please note that there is a significant difference between comprehension of a problem and the qualitative/ quantitative values of the impact caused by the said problem. Example: If your garage catches on fire, after the fire is put out you repair the damage to the garage, as opposed to replacing the entire house. Damage is gradient, from a small repair to a total loss.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I think you may have misunderstood the context of the response. Please deposit 25 cents to play again.
> 
> Umm... I am not familiar with who Mike is... unless you are referring the the former heavy weight champion, or that little kid on the Life cereal commercials.
> 
> And here comes the name calling and insulting of any logical analysis when a dissenting voice is heard. So sad.
> 
> And a deliberate attempt to misconstrue also... Please note that there is a significant difference between comprehension of a problem and the qualitative/ quantitative values of the impact caused by the said problem. Example: If your garage catches on fire, after the fire is put out you repair the damage to the garage, as opposed to replacing the entire house. Damage is gradient, from a small repair to a total loss.





> I think you may have misunderstood the context of the response. .


Well, you are confused. Maybe you'd like to try again????



> Umm... I am not familiar with who Mike is... unless you are referring the the former heavy weight champion, or that little kid on the Life cereal commercials.


A former member.
Nice guy, but his anti science started out much the same theme as yours and wound up with disreputable crack pots as authoritative sources, frequently complained about MSM articles about weather and climate ( all the while seeming to claim weather and climate were the same). A google search warrior.
He appeared to believe politics controlled the climate and his views were a mix of young earth creationism and neo-conservatism.
So, he seemed deaf and blind to reality. 
Times change and the characters against science now seem to be the Trump Nationalists and the evangelicals that worship Trump as an emissary of God.

I once posted you didn't know 'jack'.
Inside joke.
That used to be my handle at TSG ( not my screen name though ) 
You are just now getting to know me a little bit better 



> And here comes the name calling and insulting of any logical analysis when a dissenting voice is heard. So sad.


You're just lost in your confusion 
Maybe a little too sensitive? ( : )



> And a deliberate attempt to misconstrue also... Please note that there is a significant difference between comprehension of a problem and the qualitative/ quantitative values of the impact caused by the said problem.



You can't believe in something you claim doesn't exist 
It' makes no sense unless, it's to obfuscate your position 


> ob·fus·cate
> /ˈäbfəˌskāt/
> verb
> verb: obfuscate; 3rd person present: obfuscates; past tense: obfuscated; past participle: obfuscated; gerund or present participle: obfuscating
> 
> render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.





> I do believe that man affects the climate; however, I am not convinced that the science behind the assumption is sound.


And yet, in the past, you posted a climate denier as your proof. 
( you remember? the guy that used fake identities to add support to his theories  )
Of what?
Obviously that there is no global warming.

Soooo.... (yawn) weasel words 

I know. I know. You want to sound reasonable. 
But you can't believe in something you claim doesn't exist .


----------



## valis

I seriously do not understand your confusion on this. Math is math. Climate change is happening. 

As for the slippery slope, there is all sorts of free speech. That said, in debates you have to own up to your statements and to date you have been unable to do so. It is one thing to opine that the Astros suck, it is quite another to state that there is empirical data to prove it out. The first is an opinion, the second a statement. If one cannot defend the statement, always keep it an opinion.

There is factual evidence gathered on decades of evidence that CO2 is rising. This is fact.

There is factual evidence that there is more methane being released than at anytime in human history. This too is fact.

The planets climate is warming. This is a fact.

Any of these statements are easily verifiable, so again, I fail to see the confusion here.

I enjoy your input here and welcome it, but jeeze, sometimes 2 and 2 do equal 4.


----------



## Idontknow.

Johnny b said:


> Even though global warming is real and observed, it's still a political football to be exaggerated by some and denied by others.
> These distortions didn't start with Trump or the current liberal left, the players of extremes have been at it since at least the beginning of the GW Bush administrations.
> 
> Unfortunately for humanity, science and reality are moving the projected scenarios closer and closer to some of those early gloom and doom projections.
> 
> And the same usual suspects on the conservative right are spreading lies to support denial.
> A 1656 page National Climate Assessment ( https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/ ) came out of the Trump administration recently only to be denied by Trump and the usual denier suspects.
> 
> Interesting article by Joseph McCarthy, an associate editor at weather.com discussing the immediate reaction and distortions from the denier camp.
> 
> https://features.weather.com/major-national-climate-report-came-deniers-got-tv/
> 
> The fact that Trump is a global warming denier is just cause to be skeptical of the denier mentality.
> Science and reality is just cause to call them out on their lies.
> 
> (in my humble opinion, of course  )


LOL. Climate happens. Been doing it since infinium.


----------



## valis

Infinium?


----------



## Johnny b

Definition. Ad Infinium rate. (Adverb) from Latin, "to infinity" a non-terminating repeating process. Usage: "The sequence 1, 2, 3, ... continues ad infinitum."


----------



## Idontknow.

valis said:


> Infinium?


LOL. Try and keep up with the point.


----------



## valis

Okay, that made me laugh.


----------



## Johnny b

Idontknow. said:


> LOL. Try and keep up with the point.


What do you think the point is?


----------



## Idontknow.

Johnny b said:


> What do you think the point is?


Read what I wrote. Then you would not have to ask.


----------



## Johnny b

Idontknow. said:


> Read what I wrote. Then you would not have to ask.


Really?
You want me to critique your post? 

Aside from the fact you posted little to the subject other than 'climate' exists.....
Well, your grammar makes your post look like nonsense or perhaps a reading comprehension issue.



> LOL. Climate happens. Been doing it since infinium.


You LOL'ed.
But you seem to have left out the joke and the punch line.

"Climate happens" 
Well, it exists for everyone. And it changes over time.
Hardly a point anyone would disagree with nor controversial.

"Been doing it since infinium"
Infinium is not a noun or a verb.
I posted the definition.


> Definition. Ad Infinium rate. (Adverb) from Latin, "to infinity" a non-terminating repeating process.


Interpretation of your statement, with grammatical error:
Climate has been doing something repeatedly since infinity.

Do you understand why valis is laughing at you?.............(  )

I'll give you another chance.......what is the 'point' you speak of?


----------



## Johnny b

Don't be shy, we're all friends here


----------



## Idontknow.

Johnny b said:


> Really?
> You want me to critique your post?
> 
> Aside from the fact you posted little to the subject other than 'climate' exists.....
> Well, your grammar makes your post look like nonsense or perhaps a reading comprehension issue.
> 
> You LOL'ed.
> But you seem to have left out the joke and the punch line.
> 
> "Climate happens"
> Well, it exists for everyone. And it changes over time.
> Hardly a point anyone would disagree with nor controversial.
> 
> "Been doing it since infinium"
> Infinium is not a noun or a verb.
> I posted the definition.
> 
> Interpretation of your statement, with grammatical error:
> Climate has been doing something repeatedly since infinity.
> 
> Do you understand why valis is laughing at you?.............(  )
> 
> I'll give you another chance.......what is the 'point' you speak of?


Are you the self appointed Grammatical police? You holy then thou people are what is wrong with America. Damaging America with your lib commie socialist nonsense. There is no climate problems by cows or humans. It's so stupid it's borderline neurotic. Now do you get it or are you stuck at spell check? If that's the case leave the thinking to people that actually can do it. LOL Oh and I don't need other people's back slapping like you seem to need. LOL You got anything left?


----------



## Johnny b

Idontknow. said:


> Are you the self appointed Grammatical police? You holy then thou people are what is wrong with America. Damaging America with your lib commie socialist nonsense. There is no climate problems by cows or humans. It's so stupid it's borderline neurotic. Now do you get it or are you stuck at spell check? If that's the case leave the thinking to people that actually can do it. LOL Oh and I don't need other people's back slapping like you seem to need. LOL You got anything left?


OK....I'll put it down to a reading comprehension issue.
( maybe too much Fox News too ? )

Sad the state of education these days...........

( I LOL'ed )


----------



## Johnny b

BTW, I'm not surprised you couldn't produce a lucid response 

Edit:



Idontknow. said:


> Are you the self appointed Grammatical police? You holy then thou people are what is wrong with America. Damaging America with your lib commie socialist nonsense. There is no climate problems by cows or humans. It's so stupid it's borderline neurotic. Now do you get it or are you stuck at spell check? If that's the case leave the thinking to people that actually can do it. LOL Oh and I don't need other people's back slapping like you seem to need. LOL You got anything left?


While I wait for another irrational attack, I'll do you the favor of carefully reading your last reply.



> Are you the self appointed Grammatical police?


No, I don't get paid for that service at TSG. It's provided gratis 



> You holy then thou people are what is wrong with America.


I agree that evangelicals that worship Trump as the emissary of God is a moral and religious problem. They argue to infringe on our Constitutional Rights.



> Damaging America with your lib commie socialist nonsense.


You appear confused.
Does the fact that I oppose both Trumptonian fascism and the socialism of Sanders and AOC confuse you?
Or you just like to tag any one that doesn't bow to The fascist Malevolent Opportunist as a 'commie'?
I think you are confused and ignorant of reality. Just my opinion (  )



> There is no climate problems by cows or humans. It's so stupid it's borderline neurotic.


I guess you'll just have to live in frustration with a reality you don't appear to understand.
And there's that darn grammar again 



> Now do you get it or are you stuck at spell check?


You asked.
IMO, you are severely challenged with confusion, probably brought about by not knowing 
what you are talking about compounded by the likes of Fox News and the mentally unstable Alex Jones .( Yes, Alex has admitted he's mentally unstable, publicly )



> If that's the case leave the thinking to people that actually can do it.



OK....that joke I got 



> LOL






> Oh and I don't need other people's back slapping like you seem to need.



You are a funny guy :up:



> LOL






> You got anything left?


You haven't verified or clarified any of your wild comments 
You simply request I read what you write.
Well, I've done that.

What was your point?


----------



## OBP

Chawbacon, I agree with you, however you are wasting your time with Johnnyb who is just a Warmist Troll.
All the signs are there, sarkiness, "denier", ad homs, "Fox News", but no substance.
I expect he is about 20-25 with no historical experience of so called Climate Change.
He is a Consensus believer and has faith instead of being sceptical, the very essence of Science.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Chawbacon, I agree with you, however you are wasting your time with Johnnyb who is just a Warmist Troll.
> All the signs are there, sarkiness, "denier", ad homs, "Fox News", but no substance.
> I expect he is about 20-25 with no historical experience of so called Climate Change.
> He is a Consensus believer and has faith instead of being sceptical, the very essence of Science.


Go ask valis who I am.

I was at TSG under a different screen name long before you joined and posted to numerous scientific research papers on global warming. And addressed the papers of climate deniers at the same time.

I'm disappointed to see a member of the TSG team make such an unjust and ignorant post.
And your estimate of my age is off by about 50 years.


----------



## valis

valis said:


> There is factual evidence gathered on decades of evidence that CO2 is rising. This is fact.
> 
> There is factual evidence that there is more methane being released than at anytime in human history. This too is fact.
> 
> The planets climate is warming. This is a fact.
> 
> Any of these statements are easily verifiable, so again, I fail to see the confusion here.


Again.....where are the issues here?


----------



## valis

Only 50?


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Only 50?


+ another 23


----------



## valis

LOL!


----------



## valis

I wrote this nearly a decade ago and am astounded I still need to quote it....it amazes me that people still try to refute verifiable facts.

https://timothypierce.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/global-warming-redux/

It isnt IF it is happening that should be discussed, it should be what can we do moving forward. I simply dont understand the confusion here. It is, to me, on par with flat earthers or the idiots that dont believe in a moon landing.

All that said, it makes a LOT more sense with regards to how the heck Trump got elected.


----------



## Johnny b

That was a good piece, Tim.

There is tremendous amounts of serious information and data available across the Internet.
Unfortunately there is a lot of click bait trash that makes money out of controversial topics.
Flat earth, faked moon landings, pyramids built by aliens, pyramids built as huge electrical utilities, perpetual machines....on and on.
And with out a proper education, many people simply can not tell the difference between the click bait and reality.

Same with political propaganda.

And that's where this topic of global warming becomes controversial.
Not being able to recognize the faked data and fake arguments.
The scientific method is being challenged by political opponents. Not just one, but both the majors.

Skepticism is the means for correctness within the scientific method.
But there is no room for fake data, fake theories or propaganda driven results.


----------



## valis

Thank you John; from you, that is high praise indeed.

And I agree. Politics should never override science, and IMO, those that put politics ahead of knowledge are the vast majority of the intellect issue here in the US.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Thank you John; from you, that is high praise indeed.
> 
> And I agree. Politics should never override science, and IMO, those that put politics ahead of knowledge are the vast majority of the intellect issue here in the US.


Careful with the praise.
I recently endured criticism over similar lol!

Yeah, your analysis is spot on.

It's the constant repetition of the same fallacious arguments that wears me down.
Not just climate issues.
WMD.
Young Earth creationism.
Illicit drugs (  maybe not. I had a lot of fun with that one.) 
Abortion.
And more that I've forgotten and rather not remember


----------



## valis

And Street Outlaws.....do not forget that fiasco....


----------



## valis

YEC I have no issue with, nor belief in God. Those people who believe in God, IMO, need a crutch and as that discussion (God, not YEC) is an unprovable problem, I tend not to waste time on it.

But climate change is soooo simple. Arguing against it is akin to stating the sky is plaid. 

If it is provable, why disagree? It is like saying gravity doesnt work.


----------



## Johnny b

Indeed


----------



## Johnny b

The YEC was a big issue for me. Closer to 'home' than climate warming because of my University major......geology.
Not from the belief of God, from the intense insanity to make geology an illogical miracle because of how they interpreted the Bible.
I was astonished at what some YEC's thought about how the Earth formed and their geological beliefs.

Last I read, Morris and company moved to Texas and was shut down.


----------



## valis

My baby sis is a YEC, so thats probably where I get my compassion in that area...and for her, it is most definitely a crutch. That said, she has raised two great girls and is a pillar in her community; while her beliefs are blind, her contributions are not, and I have to give her that.

I love geology but never got into it. I remember one visit to the Grand Canyon as a teen and thinking of all the millenia required to make what I was seeing and feeling very, very inadequate.


----------



## Johnny b

It's very impressive.

I've done sightseeing on a motorcycle from the high desert of Nevada to Denali in Alaska.
It was certainly an overwhelming experience.
Pictures mean little unless you've been there.

When looking at the Milky Way, out West,
it's difficult to frame time and space and compare it to life and experiences on earth.


----------



## valis

It is humbling, to say the least.


----------



## Idontknow.

Johnny b said:


> OK....I'll put it down to a reading comprehension issue.
> ( maybe too much Fox News too ? )
> 
> Sad the state of education these days...........
> 
> ( I LOL'ed )


That's your contribution? Stay n the porch.


----------



## valis

And your contribution is....?


----------



## OBP

Well now I am shocked, Valis also resorting to Ad Homs, "Flat Earthers", "Moon landing conspirasists" to describe some extremely Intelligent Scientists in such terms is disgraceful.

As to JBs statements "
I'm disappointed to see a member of the TSG team make such an unjust and ignorant post.
And your estimate of my age is off by about 50 years."
I appologise if you are offended, the fact that you come across as a 20 something just out of Uni is not my problem though.
I am again shocked that someone your age has forgotten so much about recent climate history and am disappointed at the way you argue your case.

But let's get down to the nitty gritty, you both shamefully use the term "Climate Change" which is the sanitized version of CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, remember that.
Don't you wonder why CAGW, AGW and GW are no longer used.
Couldn't be the fact that it did not work out, that all those early so called Scientific predictions haven't come true and just keep getting moved further and further in to the future.

Can I ask you a few serious questions.
Have you read UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and Sustainability?
Do you actually believe that there is a 97% consensus of Scientists that believe "CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate"?
Do you believe that the information that comes out of the IPCC is Scientific?
Do you believe that the information that comes out of NASA?
Did you read the Climate emails?


----------



## OBP

Chawbacon have you noticed that the people that are brainwashed in to believing in CAGW are also those that believe Renewables are good, Trump is Bad and the attempted coup on him is a Conspiracy theory and those in the UK do not believe in Brexit.


----------



## Johnny b

Idontknow. said:


> That's your contribution? Stay n the porch.


What is your contribution?

You seem to post in riddles.
You butcher logic.
And I've seen you post incredible ignorance on political theory.

All I've seen from you is a history of poorly crafted drivebys.

What does 'stay n the porch' even mean?


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Well now I am shocked, Valis also resorting to Ad Homs, "Flat Earthers", "Moon landing conspirasists" to describe some extremely Intelligent Scientists in such terms is disgraceful.
> 
> As to JBs statements "
> I'm disappointed to see a member of the TSG team make such an unjust and ignorant post.
> And your estimate of my age is off by about 50 years."
> I appologise if you are offended, the fact that you come across as a 20 something just out of Uni is not my problem though.
> I am again shocked that someone your age has forgotten so much about recent climate history and am disappointed at the way you argue your case.
> 
> But let's get down to the nitty gritty, you both shamefully use the term "Climate Change" which is the sanitized version of CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, remember that.
> Don't you wonder why CAGW, AGW and GW are no longer used.
> Couldn't be the fact that it did not work out, that all those early so called Scientific predictions haven't come true and just keep getting moved further and further in to the future.
> 
> Can I ask you a few serious questions.
> Have you read UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and Sustainability?
> Do you actually believe that there is a 97% consensus of Scientists that believe "CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate"?
> Do you believe that the information that comes out of the IPCC is Scientific?
> Do you believe that the information that comes out of NASA?
> Did you read the Climate emails?


I believe your expertise in not in the realm of geo-science.

It is difficult to address you, wearing the hats of both TSG member and TSG Trusted Advisor because I've lost respect and it becomes an issue of my membership.

You further insult me by comparing my posts to that of a 20 year old.
I notice you took a night off to think about crafting a response when a more recent apology, even a simple response would have sufficed.

I followed the history of attacks against Phil Jones and Michael Mann.
I presented the findings from investigations that brought out the lies of climate deniers
that faked data, used sophistry and even recently addressed and outed Chewbacon's authoritative source.
At TSG, I addressed what the term 'Tricks' meant in the climate realm of science. I addressed the tree ring controversy and showed why the 'hidden decline' never existed to begin with.
I showed the relationship the the 'little ice age' had with global reality.
I addressed the convoluted lies of Monocton and more.
I addressed the Goddard Labs ( NASA to you ) data and controversies involving placement of weather recording equipment, the change in equipment and data format, the expulsion of erratic data from poor placement.

And a whole hell of a lot more.



> But let's get down to the nitty gritty, you both shamefully use the term "Climate Change" which is the sanitized version of CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING, remember that.


No, I don't.
I've never made any claim to that effect.
To the contrary, I've never implied 'an end to the world and all life on it' scenario.
I have criticized the Liberals that posted to that effect.

So here is what I'm seeing and realizing.
You start off with BS as if it's a tactic of debate.

Have I read:


> UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 and Sustainability


No, but I just did a brief read.
I shall call you 'Mike' for obvious reasons.
You just referred to a 'socialist' plan to remake the world.
That's not a 'scientific' approach to the dynamics of climate and energy distribution.
Why, because it starts with a non scientific goal that is based on a bias.

Apparently this went over your head , or you wouldn't be referring to it.



> Do you actually believe that there is a 97% consensus of Scientists that believe "CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate"?


CO2 is one of many green house gasses. Of what industrialization introduces, it is of the greatest in percentage.
As a whole, the statistic I remember is that overall, that amounts to about a 4% increase in the environment.
Every year.
That is in addition to what existed the previous year.
With the oceans supersaturated, there becomes a greater and greater increase concentration in the atmosphere than 4%.

* CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate *
It does appear so.
Methane release is a coming issue to compound the problem.
You may have heard the term, 'tipping point' ?
That will be one of many.
Tipping points have already come. Ocean currents have begun to change. Energy distribution alters environments. This is evident now in Antarctica as the melt, at one time not evident to any great degree, becomes a reality as the melt occurs from the underneath of it's glaciers.
The Tundra melts. More methane is released. And methane has a much greater impact as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Do you deny this?
Do you deny the record keeping.
Do you deny the receding Ice extents in the Arctic?
Or is the daily temperature in Beijing of more importance to you?



> Do you believe that the information that comes out of the IPCC is Scientific?


They've had to back track on claims.
They seem to have corrected issues in the past.
Do I follow them? No



> s Scientific?
> Do you believe that the information that comes out of NASA?


Of Goddard Labs, GISS, you mean?
Data, yes. Most conclusions, yes.
But much of their work was excluded from public view by Bush and now it's reported that the Trump administration has censored to the degree that certain words and concepts aren't to be used.....like climate change and global warming.
So, it's difficult to say I believe everything coming out of a censored government facility or only what comes out.

I've referenced GISS in the past as well as NOAA.
I haven't found either to lie about their data collections.

I have found Allan Watts to misrepresent their findings, though.
Even pointed out his dated NOAA Ice Extent images didn't always match up with what NOAA had posted 
Actually, not often.
And yet deniers at TSG still used him as an authoritative source



> Did you read the Climate emails?


Each one?
Hell no.
The investigation of them, hell yes.
Jones and Mann were absolved. A severe case of sophistry and abuse of context.
By deniers.
I read where Mann was starting a lawsuit for defamation. 
Either way, be interesting to see how that turns out 

Well, 'Mike', you've accomplished wasting my time, but now I know YOU better


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Well now I am shocked, Valis also resorting to Ad Homs, "Flat Earthers", "Moon landing conspirasists" to describe some extremely Intelligent Scientists in such terms is disgraceful.
> .....................



Seriously, do you understand the term ad hominem' ?

Let me help you LOL!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


> Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself


You've probably read that before with out understanding the context.

To describe an individual using his attributes as they apply to the subject is not an ad hominem.
How else could you infer a scientist studies reality within the means of the scientific method. You say, so and so is a scientist. 
Or how else to describe a politician? Or a medical doctor?

* flat earthers *
Please explain to me how a person that believes the Earth is flat could be better described ( LOL! )
And talk about ignoring the principles of the scientific method, please explain how you could describe a person working as a scientist in terms that do not express his stupidity.
I chose not to use the term 'ignorance' intentionally 

* Moon landing conspirasists (sp)*
Again, the terms accurately define the the denier and his belief.
How is that an intentional misrepresentation or attempt to divert attention away from a discussion about moon landings?

Sometimes, an idiot is just that, an idiot.

But an ad hom is an attack of diversion, not in any way related to statements of fact that address the topic at hand.

Here's an example of an ad hominem:



> You don't know what you're talking about, you even were responsible for engineering the crappy cars we had to put up with for many decades


That's an ad hominen, Mike


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Chawbacon, I agree with you, however you are wasting your time with Johnnyb who is just a Warmist Troll.
> All the signs are there, sarkiness, "denier", ad homs, "Fox News", but no substance.
> I expect he is about 20-25 with no historical experience of so called Climate Change.
> He is a Consensus believer and has faith instead of being sceptical, the very essence of Science.


Recognize any ad homs above?

There's a term for that.

Hypocrite.



> Definition of hypocrite
> 
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite
> 1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
> 2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings


I see heavy on #2


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Chawbacon have you noticed that the people that are brainwashed in to believing in CAGW are also those that believe Renewables are good, Trump is Bad and the attempted coup on him is a Conspiracy theory and those in the UK do not believe in Brexit.




Looks to me you are very desperate to prove a point.

CAGW.
catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Do you understand the term 'catistrophic'.

Let me help you 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=catistrophic


> cat·a·stroph·ic
> /ˌkadəˈsträfik/
> adjective
> adjective: catastrophic
> 
> involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.
> "a catastrophic earthquake"
> extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful.
> "catastrophic mismanagement of the economy"
> synonyms:	disastrous, calamitous, cataclysmic, ruinous, tragic, fatal, dire, awful, terrible, dreadful, black, woeful, grievous, lamentable, miserable, unfortunate; literarydireful
> "the catastrophic consequences of a major oil spill"
> antonyms:	fortunate, beneficial
> involving a sudden and large-scale alteration in state.
> "the body undergoes catastrophic collapse towards the state of a black hole"
> relating to geological catastrophism.


It seems to mean that an end to all life is evident in a very short period of time.
Have you seen anyone post apocalyptic forecasts in this thread?
Did I miss them?
Please point them out.



> also those that believe Renewables are good


To complete that line of thought, using simple logic, no 'tricks'  ,I assume you infer the concept of re-newables is bad?
Why is the concept 'bad'?
Please, don't go with infusing the nonsense of AOC's socialist argument to magically transform the US energy supply into a wholly re-newable source, address why using additional sources that are more economical than coal should be restricted.

Is your argument for a better game of golf, as Trump seems to declare?



> Trump is Bad


Subjective, but there is enough data out there to derive a quantitative analysis.
Little things.
Like bribing a minion to break laws with a promised pardon in advance of the crime.
Physical abuse of asylum seekers and blaming it on Liberals.
On and On.
You can even read some of it in this forum 

Yeah, Trump bad.



> the attempted coup on him is a Conspiracy theory


Oh my goodness.
Do you understand the definition of 'coup' in the context you posted?
Let me help you .... again.... 

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=coup


> coup
> /ko͞o/
> noun
> noun: coup; plural noun: coups; noun: coup d'état; plural noun: coup d'états; plural noun: coups d'état
> 
> 1.
> a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
> "he was overthrown in an army coup"
> synonyms:	seizure of power, overthrow, takeover, ousting, deposition, regime change; More
> bloodless coup, palace revolution;
> rebellion, revolt, insurrection, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, insurgency, rising, rioting, riot;
> coup d'état, jacquerie;
> putsch
> "the prime minister was deposed in a coup in 1995"
> antonyms:	election
> 2.
> a notable or successful stroke or move.
> "it was a major coup to get such a prestigious contract"
> synonyms:	success, triumph, feat, successful maneuver, stunt, accomplishment, achievement, attainment, stroke, master stroke, stroke of genius; More
> scoop;
> tour de force
> "securing Springsteen to open the new National Bowl was a coup for the owners"
> an unusual or unexpected but successful tactic in card play.
> 3.
> historical
> (among some North American Indian peoples) an act of touching an armed enemy in battle as a deed of bravery, or an act of first touching an item of the enemy's in order to claim it.
> 4.
> a contusion caused by contact of the brain with the skull at the point of trauma.
> 
> Origin
> late 18th century: from French, from medieval Latin colpus 'blow' (see cope1).


Pretty sure you infer the context of #1



> 1.
> a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.
> "he was overthrown in an army coup"
> synonyms:	seizure of power, overthrow, takeover, ousting, deposition, regime change; More
> bloodless coup, palace revolution;


Well, coup doesn't seem a very good fit to me.
Where was the attempted violence?
What illegal seizure was attempted? I saw legal proceedings. And they aren't over.

I think it would be better stated that Justice has questions  
Congress, too 
And it is far from over 



> those in the UK do not believe in Brexit.


It's a mystery to me.
I don't understand self destruction.
Maybe you'd like to start a thread and explain what's going on with Britain's economy?

But I don't see any connection to the science of climate studies 

Oh....I get it, you just made all that stuff up


----------



## OBP

"I believe your expertise in not in the realm of geo-science."
How perceptive of you, I am a retired Engineer who has spent the last 13 years educating myself about CAGW.

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with TSG, or my contribution to the technicalities of Excel, Access and VBA. It is just a random group of people discussing and presenting their opinions about Global Warming.

"I notice you took a night off to think about crafting a response"
Your obvious bias and US centrism misinforms you in to making poor decisions, it should be patently obvious that I live in the UK, it was gone midnight when I posted after finding the post and I went to bed.

"No, I don't. I've never made any claim to that effect. To the contrary, I've never implied 'an end to the world and all life on it' scenario."
Then there is very little left to discuss is there?
If Global warming is in no way Catastrophic there is absolutely nothing to worry about and the discussion is mute.

"No, but I just did a brief read. I shall call you 'Mike' for obvious reasons. You just referred to a 'socialist' plan to remake the world."
So there we have it, you completely show your ignorance of the real world, the whole basis of the IPCC and "Climate Change" stems from the UN and those Political Agendas. In fact the Leaders of the UN Climate Change comittee openly admit it is "not about the Climate Science or the Environment at all" but bringing about one world rule and the end of Captilism. All of the COP meeting and especially the Paris Accord all stem from them, the brain washing and use of CHILDREN for Climate Propganda comes from them.

I note that you did not say whether you believe in the 97% Concessus.

Your whole paragraph on the "*CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate " *ending with "Do you deny this?" shows how truly brainwashed or ingenious you are.
You talk about CO2 & Methane and forget the 3 Actual Control Knobs, ie Solar Energy, Earth's position relative to the a Sun and of course H2O. If I need to explain about H2O you are no Climate guru.
The Antarctic melting from below is due to Volcanoes and not Global warming.

"Do you deny the receding Ice extents in the Arctic?"
Do you deny that it is no longer receding, do you deny that it has not receded before?

"
Of Goddard Labs, GISS, you mean? Data, yes. Most conclusions, yes."
No I mean the organisors of the Data that GISS mangle. I mean NASA/NCDC/NOAA, so do you believe that it is now warmer than 1997?
Or alterantively that they made a big mistake and did not correct it?

"now it's reported that the Trump administration has censored to the degree that certain words and concepts aren't to be used.....like climate change"
Are you saying that they no longer use the term "Climate Change"?

"I have found Allan Watts to misrepresent their findings, though."
Who is Allan Watts, do you mean Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat?

"
The investigation of them, hell yes. Jones and Mann were absolved."
How naive you are, that investigation was a complete whitewash by the UK Government.

"I read were Mann was starting a lawsuit for defamation."
I suggest that you do a catch-up on just how well that is going for him LOL.

Ans last but not least we have this
"Well, 'Mike', you've accomplished wasting my time, but now I know YOU better"
It is obvious that you know nothing about me at all, not even what time zone I am in.


----------



## OBP

"You've probably read that before with out understanding the context. To describe an individual using his attributes as they apply to the subject is not an ad hominem."
But an ad hom is an attack of diversion, not in any way related to statements of fact that address the topic at hand.

Which is EXACTLY what an attack on the person is to detract from their contribution to a discussion, ie writing them off as "flat Earthers" or Conspiracy theorists.

You have made my point because that is precisely what both you and Valis do.
The mere term denialist is derogatory, demeening and an ad hom all on it's own.
The correct term is SCEPTIC.

Your supercilious attitude adds nothing to your argument or to the discussion.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> "I believe your expertise in not in the realm of geo-science."
> How perceptive of you, I am a retired Engineer who has spent the last 13 years educating myself about CAGW.
> 
> This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with TSG, or my contribution to the technicalities of Excel, Access and VBA. It is just a random group of people discussing and presenting their opinions about Global Warming.
> 
> "I notice you took a night off to think about crafting a response"
> Your obvious bias and US centrism misinforms you in to making poor decisions, it should be patently obvious that I live in the UK, it was gone midnight when I posted after finding the post and I went to bed.
> 
> "No, I don't. I've never made any claim to that effect. To the contrary, I've never implied 'an end to the world and all life on it' scenario."
> Then there is very little left to discuss is there?
> If Global warming is in no way Catastrophic there is absolutely nothing to worry about and the discussion is mute.
> 
> "No, but I just did a brief read. I shall call you 'Mike' for obvious reasons. You just referred to a 'socialist' plan to remake the world."
> So there we have it, you completely show your ignorance of the real world, the whole basis of the IPCC and "Climate Change" stems from the UN and those Political Agendas. In fact the Leaders of the UN Climate Change comittee openly admit it is "not about the Climate Science or the Environment at all" but bringing about one world rule and the end of Captilism. All of the COP meeting and especially the Paris Accord all stem from them, the brain washing and use of CHILDREN for Climate Propganda comes from them.
> 
> I note that you did not say whether you believe in the 97% Concessus.
> 
> Your whole paragraph on the "*CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate " *ending with "Do you deny this?" shows how truly brainwashed or ingenious you are.
> You talk about CO2 & Methane and forget the 3 Actual Control Knobs, ie Solar Energy, Earth's position relative to the a Sun and of course H2O. If I need to explain about H2O you are no Climate guru.
> The Antarctic melting from below is due to Volcanoes and not Global warming.
> 
> "Do you deny the receding Ice extents in the Arctic?"
> Do you deny that it is no longer receding, do you deny that it has not receded before?
> 
> "
> Of Goddard Labs, GISS, you mean? Data, yes. Most conclusions, yes."
> No I mean the organisors of the Data that GISS mangle. I mean NASA/NCDC/NOAA, so do you believe that it is now warmer than 1997?
> Or alterantively that they made a big mistake and did not correct it?
> 
> "now it's reported that the Trump administration has censored to the degree that certain words and concepts aren't to be used.....like climate change"
> Are you saying that they no longer use the term "Climate Change"?
> 
> "I have found Allan Watts to misrepresent their findings, though."
> Who is Allan Watts, do you mean Anthony Watts of WattsUpWithThat?
> 
> "
> The investigation of them, hell yes. Jones and Mann were absolved."
> How naive you are, that investigation was a complete whitewash by the UK Government.
> 
> "I read were Mann was starting a lawsuit for defamation."
> I suggest that you do a catch-up on just how well that is going for him LOL.
> 
> Ans last but not least we have this
> "Well, 'Mike', you've accomplished wasting my time, but now I know YOU better"
> It is obvious that you know nothing about me at all, not even what time zone I am in.





> How perceptive of you, I am a retired Engineer


I know, it's in your TSG bio.



> who has spent the last 13 years educating myself about CAGW.


And it's obvious.
While you studied the political distortions of the science, you apparently became biased from a political pov ( it's rather obvious in your other comments ) and you justify rationalizing an opposing political position with irrational comments to any one that disagrees with your politics.
I have pointed this out as fallacies from the deniers as well as the exaggerations from the Liberal elements.

Being an engineer studying science is honorable. Injecting politics in to a scientific discussion obviously isn't.



> This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with TSG, or my contribution to the technicalities of Excel, Access and VBA. It is just a random group of people discussing and presenting their opinions about Global Warming.


Unfortunately, that'n not reality.
You carry a sign around your avatar that infers a modicum of respect is needed.
As I posted, I have none for you. It's a problem, for me.
You entered with an attack upon my character.
An ad hominen to boot.

Mulder I could trust. He liked a good 'fight'.
You, apparently not so much.



> Your obvious bias and US centrism misinforms you in to making poor decisions, it should be patently obvious that I live in the UK, it was gone midnight when I posted after finding the post and I went to bed.


You posted first at 6:56 PM US Eastern 
Again at 6:26 AM US this morning with a feeble apology and continued with one distortion and fallacious question after another.
You may be a retired engineer, but the bias stands out like a red flag in debate.



> Your obvious bias and US centrism misinforms you in to making poor decisions,


 Yeah, pragmatism can be like that .....
Did you get enough sleep last night?



> "No, I don't. I've never made any claim to that effect. To the contrary, I've never implied 'an end to the world and all life on it' scenario."
> Then there is very little left to discuss is there?


Please, you've been here long enough to use the quote function.

If you think you should leave to fight an argument with a socialist distorting scientific findings, go. I won't think any less of you (  )

But I sense you've posted more.



> If Global warming is in no way Catastrophic there is absolutely nothing to worry about and the discussion is mute.


You mean like the decline of arable land, water shortages in areas where climate changes, where food production becomes more difficult, where life itself becomes stressed?
You argue 'catastrophic' but catastrophic implies an immediate and total devistation.
I don't argue that.
I argue a future of gradual change that constantly but slowly infringes on an environment.
Climates generally change over periods of short geologic time. 
The one we're experiencing is occurring over centuries, with generations accepting as normal, what they are born into.

I now see you as a sophist.
I wasn't sure earlier.
I told you I know you better. I do. Because I've seen it in others and know what to expect.

The rest of your post is so damn messed up because you haven't learned to format a discussion.
I stop this reply here and will try to decipher the rest individually in following posts.

You left a damn mess of a post to reply to :down:


----------



## Johnny b

> So there we have it, you completely show your ignorance of the real world, the whole basis of the IPCC and "Climate Change" stems from the UN and those Political Agendas. In fact the Leaders of the UN Climate Change comittee openly admit it is "not about the Climate Science or the Environment at all" but bringing about one world rule and the end of Captilism. All of the COP meeting and especially the Paris Accord all stem from them, the brain washing and use of CHILDREN for Climate Propganda comes from them.


The concern of global warming and climate change also comes from the scientists investigating it not associated with IPCC or the UN.
And many do not express it in the outrageous and ignorant manner that you do.
Your bias excludes the responsible as well as those that distort ....for the same exact reasons as others do...political bias.
It's in almost every thing you post, mike.



> In fact the Leaders of the UN Climate Change comittee openly admit it is "not about the Climate Science or the Environment at all" but bringing about one world rule and the end of Captilism. All of the COP meeting and especially the Paris Accord all stem from them, the brain washing and use of CHILDREN for Climate Propganda comes from them.


The physical laws of our material reality do not run on the biases of UN officials nor British engineers.
You are only committing one fallacy after another.

Global warming is happening. Data collected represents it.
This is going to burn you for sure.....the hockey stick graph turned out to be pretty close 

Well, let me go find something else in the mess you left, to address


----------



## Johnny b

> I note that you did not say whether you believe in the 97% Concessus.


You noted incorrectly.
I gave you my thoughts. You just don't like them


----------



## Johnny b

> No I mean the organisors of the Data that GISS mangle. I mean NASA/NCDC/NOAA,


I think you are confused.
All those acronyms are divisions within the US government. Including GISS which is Goddard Labs, part of NASA.


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> You noted incorrectly.
> I gave you my thoughts. You just don't like them


Well, you also stated facts; sometimes those dont go over all too well either.


----------



## Johnny b

> Your whole paragraph on the "CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate " ending with "Do you deny this?" shows how truly brainwashed or ingenious you are.


Well, do you deny what I posted or not?
If other, do you agree?
Seems a simple question.



> CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate
> It does appear so.
> Methane release is a coming issue to compound the problem.
> You may have heard the term, 'tipping point' ?
> That will be one of many.
> Tipping points have already come. Ocean currents have begun to change. Energy distribution alters environments. This is evident now in Antarctica as the melt, at one time not evident to any great degree, becomes a reality as the melt occurs from the underneath of it's glaciers.
> The Tundra melts. More methane is released. And methane has a much greater impact as a greenhouse gas than CO2.


Some how in your studies, you come to believe climate is as simple as a 2+2 statement.
It's a quite complex dynamic.
Sure, CO2 seems to be the instigator of climate issues.
You didn't like my answer.
But you didn't address it or my question about denial.

It makes you look simple.
And afraid to address the subject by constantly reverting to politics,

You continue to fall back on ad hominems.
IMO, that makes you a chronic hypocrite.

Yes, I am getting to know you better


----------



## Johnny b

> Do you deny that it is no longer receding, do you deny that it has not receded before?




Look at your watch. The ice hasn't done much of anything in the last 10 minutes. LOL!

My point, it's the change over time that is the issue. both with ice extents and
general climatic conditions.

I did recently look at ice extents.
And comparing than to the past 40 years, there has been generally more retreat.

Here, you can look at conditions also:
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

summary


> Arctic sea ice extent for March averaged 14.55 million square kilometers (5.62 million square miles), tying with 2011 for the seventh lowest extent in the 40-year satellite record. This is 880,000 square kilometers (340,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average and 260,000 square kilometers (100,400 square miles) above the lowest March average, which occurred in 2017.


If you cherry pick, and I suspect you will ( Yes, I know you  ) you'll post several years you think prove your point.

So here's a graph of trends for your visual pleasure:










Maybe you'd like to read this:


> The Bering Sea, which had been nearly ice free at the beginning of March, saw gains in extent through the middle of the month. However, those gains were short lived as extent dropped sharply during the last week of March. The Bering Sea typically reaches its maximum ice extent in late March or early April. This year, the maximum occurred in late January and was 34.5 percent below the 1981 to 2010 average maximum. These late-March sea ice extent losses in the Bering Sea accelerated the decline of total Arctic sea ice extent. By April 1, Arctic extent was at a record low for that date.


How about another graph?










If you are still looking at your watch and expecting a catastrophic event, well give it a couple hundred years and let me know how it's working out.

LOL!


----------



## Johnny b

> Ans last but not least we have this
> "Well, 'Mike', you've accomplished wasting my time, but now I know YOU better"
> It is obvious that you know nothing about me at all, not even what time zone I am in.


You live somewhere in Britain. Thought I mentioned it.
You intentionally insulted me.
You slandered my character, in the first post I've ever read from you.
( it usually takes several dozen to get there  )

I know you well.
Since you brought up the subject of what you think I don't know, well, here it is:

You're an officious Britt that likes to pound sand, pontificate, name call while posing as a chronic hypocrite.

Personally, it would be better if we didn't go there.

But remember, you led the way and claimed you were no different than any other member in a discussion.

I expect a lot of flaming in the future. 

( You haven't talked to the administration about me, have you LOL! )

(I'ma gonna steal the dress you wear and use it for rags  )


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> "You've probably read that before with out understanding the context. To describe an individual using his attributes as they apply to the subject is not an ad hominem."
> But an ad hom is an attack of diversion, not in any way related to statements of fact that address the topic at hand.
> 
> Which is EXACTLY what an attack on the person is to detract from their contribution to a discussion, ie writing them off as "flat Earthers" or Conspiracy theorists.
> 
> You have made my point because that is precisely what both you and Valis do.
> The mere term denialist is derogatory, demeening and an ad hom all on it's own.
> The correct term is SCEPTIC.
> 
> Your supercilious attitude adds nothing to your argument or to the discussion.





> But an ad hom is an attack of diversion, not in any way related to statements of fact that address the topic at hand.


Are you in agreement just to be argumentative, or just haven't a clue as to what you just posted?



> Which is EXACTLY what an attack on the person is to detract from their contribution to a discussion, ie writing them off as "flat Earthers" or Conspiracy theorists.


Are you referring to some thing posted in this thread?
It would be helpful to link to it, other wise you're simply blowing smoke.



> You have made my point because that is precisely what both you and Valis do.
> The mere term denialist is derogatory, demeening and an ad hom all on it's own.


Says the guy that entered with an unsavory attitude and a chip on his narrow shoulders 

BTW, I do think flat earthers and conspiracy theorists are nutters with no conception of logic and an inability to improve their mental damage. Think Alex Jones or visit the TSG Flat Earth thread for more.
I could add others, if you like


----------



## Johnny b

Missed this one earlier.
More blathering.



> The Antarctic melting from below is due to Volcanoes and not Global warming.


It's, again , a complex dynamic.
That volcanoes exist and give off heat is correct.
But that wouldn't explain why the Antarctic has stayed unusually colder than the Arctic in the past.
(I don't feel like doing a lot of leg work on this because I see you as an irrelevant debater.)

Simply, ocean patterns in the past have had a dampening effect on Antarctic temperatures and now they've changed.
Otherwise, volcanoes wouldn't have any more effect today than in the past.
Since they seem relatively stable, their effect in introducing energy should be about the same as before.

So volcanoes exist. So what?

I suggest you actually read the findings of qualified scientists before going off on political rants.

There are many new views, but I haven't seen any that attribute all/any of the current warming to volcanoes.
If you have a legit source, post it.


----------



## OBP

"I now see you as a sophist."
No a Realist.

"The rest of your post is so damn messed up because you haven't learned to format a discussion."
And your Ego makes you think that you can LOL when my mess was merely responding to points in your mess.
Off out to Poker now, I am sure we can continue this tomorrow.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> "I now see you as a sophist."
> No a Realist.
> 
> "The rest of your post is so damn messed up because you haven't learned to format a discussion."
> And your Ego makes you think that you can LOL when my mess was merely responding to points in your mess.
> Off out to Poker now, I am sure we can continue this tomorrow.


And the denial continues 

See you later 

But please, learn how to format proper quotations.

PS: I was just kidding about your dress, I'd probably give it to GoodWill


----------



## valis

Wait...volcanoes dont contribute to cimate change any longer? When did this happen?


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Wait...volcanoes dont contribute to cimate change any longer? When did this happen?


Context ........ the ones under the Antarctic glaciers affecting the water temperature directly.
They do, but haven't been shown to be the reason for the ocean temp change going on now.


----------



## valis

It is completely irrelevant. Climate change is climate change; it matters not what causes it. If OBP cannot grasp that (and apparently they cannot) it is like playing chess with a pigeon.


----------



## Johnny b

There are limits to what is addressable and there are limits to that on what is practical.

CO2 is a major element of the problem.
It can be addressed, but the technology isn't in place yet to efficiently address it.
Much will concern lifestyles involving conservation.
Petroleum powered cars have about reached their max potential efficiency and electric cars need support from a greater electric generating infrastructure.
That's going to be expensive at a time when the US has made poor decision on running an economy and needless wars that last too long and seem to perpetuate new uprisings.

So, I don't see results happening quickly.

Fusion reactors simply aren't coming to fruition quick enough and renewable simply won't supply the growing need nor address the needs of a backup during major weather events. And batteries that big would be of a colossal size, imo.
The South Koreans seem to have spent a lot of effort on ceramic fuel cell generation.
It appears to be clean and economical.
Majors in the US like Google have been using versions of fuel cells with success, the Bloom Box ( a solid oxide fuel cell ) being one of them.

They won't solve our energy problems immediately, but they will help phase out coal and do it economically at the same time.

Coal is actually a terrible energy source from an economic standpoint and is being phased out by natural gas in the utility industry. LNG generation is cheaper, electricity prices have lowered with it and less of a carbon footprint. What's not to like?

There are pragmatic options that can be implemented, that address the CO2 problem directly with out any necessary extremist socialization.

With climate deniers backing the Trump plan to expand coal usage, only insanity rules and it involves a bad scenario.

Some eye candy:
https://www.google.com/search?q=&cl...a0KHcGEBoEQ9C96BAgBEBg&biw=1214&bih=729&dpr=1


----------



## valis

OBP said:


> Well now I am shocked, Valis also resorting to Ad Homs,


Again; I do not think you grasp the logical fallacy here. I think you know the name and as such are flouting it, but I think the logic behind it eludes you. Show me where I stated an ad hominim fallacy again?

Beliefs are beliefs, but this is tinfoil hat stuff. If you cannot see the proof there is nothing more I can contribute.

It is literally as plain as the nose on your face. (That is the thing betwixt the eyes and above the pie hole).


----------



## Johnny b

I found this:

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-9#post-9596305

You posted an opinion to which I completely agreed and still do:

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-9#post-9596311

No individual at TSG was labeled as such. No one was inferred.
It was an intellectual exchange relating to logic and intelligence, in general.

Apparently engineer Mike was offended.

I do not see any suggestion of either being an ad hominem 

I had to do a page search for 'flat' to find them.


----------



## OBP

JB, I notice that after making comments you re-think your position when you have made an obvious mistake, obviously doing some quick research, the under Antarctic volcanoes is a classic example of a slight correction in response first of all I was "blathering" and then it changed to "OK so there are volcanoes but it makes no difference".
a Link for Valis
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground

Thankyou for posting the Arctic Sea Ice Charts, of course they are NSIDC graphs and their data says that "The 2019 maximum is effectively tied with the 2007 maximum at seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record."
But of course as you are aware the Extent is not controlled by temperatures so much as currents and winds.
I prefer DMI data their extent graph is here
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-extent0/
and their Thickness/Volume is here
http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/#c23629

Unfortunately I am having major Broadband issues today and the "Virgin Media" man is coming tomorrow to look at our cable.


----------



## OBP

valis said:


> Again; I do not think you grasp the logical fallacy here. I think you know the name and as such are flouting it, but I think the logic behind it eludes you. Show me where I stated an ad hominim fallacy again?
> 
> Beliefs are beliefs, but this is tinfoil hat stuff. If you cannot see the proof there is nothing more I can contribute.
> 
> It is literally as plain as the nose on your face. (That is the thing betwixt the eyes and above the pie hole).


Vilas, I am sorry, but if you cannot see that dismissing others opinions, including renowned Scientists by declaring that they are "Flat Earther", "Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists" or "Tin Foil Hat wearers" is not
"
*Definition of ad hominem*
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 *: *appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an _ad hominem_ argument
2 *: *marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an _ad hominem_ personal attack on his rival
"
Especially point 2.

I still do not understand where you are coming from, I do not know any Sceptics that do not accept "Climate Change", Climate has always changed.
I also do not know any that do not accept that the world has warmed since the last Ice Age and also since the LIA we are after all in an interglacial period.
But I do know a lot of them do not accept that our current warming is man made or anything unusual.
So I don't know what is as plain as the nose on your or my face, perhaps you could give me some pointers of what to look for.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> JB, I notice that after making comments you re-think your position when you have made an obvious mistake, obviously doing some quick research, the under Antarctic volcanoes is a classic example of a slight correction in response first of all I was "blathering" and then it changed to "OK so there are volcanoes but it makes no difference".
> a Link for Valis
> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground
> 
> Thankyou for posting the Arctic Sea Ice Charts, of course they are NSIDC graphs and their data says that "The 2019 maximum is effectively tied with the 2007 maximum at seventh lowest in the 40-year satellite record."
> But of course as you are aware the Extent is not controlled by temperatures so much as currents and winds.
> I prefer DMI data their extent graph is here
> http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-extent0/
> and their Thickness/Volume is here
> http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/#c23629
> 
> Unfortunately I am having major Broadband issues today and the "Virgin Media" man is coming tomorrow to look at our cable.





> I notice that after making comments you re-think your position when you have made an obvious mistake, obviously doing some quick research, the under Antarctic volcanoes is a classic example of a slight correction in response first of all I was "blathering" and then it changed to "OK so there are volcanoes but it makes no difference".


Let's look at the grievous distortions you make aside from the ad homenim attacks and name calling.

You posted:


> The Antarctic melting from below is due to Volcanoes and not Global warming.


My reply:


> It's, again , a complex dynamic.
> That volcanoes exist and give off heat is correct.
> But that wouldn't explain why the Antarctic has stayed unusually colder than the Arctic in the past.


Followed with more explanation.

You made such a mess of formatting that damn post of yours, I missed the dumbarse comment but caught it later on.

Why 'dumbarse'?

Well let's just look at the link you posted and review:

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/hot-news-from-the-antarctic-underground/



> Although *the heat source isn't a new or increasing threat to the West Antarctic ice sheet*, it may help explain why the ice sheet collapsed rapidly in an earlier era of rapid climate change, and why it is so unstable today.


Now look at what I posted:


> Simply, ocean patterns in the past have had a dampening effect on Antarctic temperatures and now they've changed.
> 
> Since they ( edit: volcanoes ) seem relatively stable, their effect in introducing energy should be about the same as before.
> 
> So volcanoes exist. So what?


Think for yourself for a change rather than continually embracing and parroting the rhetoric of deniers.
I gave you the same scenario in fewer words.

You have rested you laurels on an engineering background.
My university degree was in Geology.
I know what the 'words' mean and what they mean in combinations.

If you think you can fool the readers, shame on you.
If you think you can fool me, you are going to have to try a lot harder.



> you re-think your position


Never happened.
You've gone from a chronic hypocrite to intellectually dishonest in one single post.
An explanation is not rethinking a situation, especially when it's in the first reply.

Notice my comment at the top of my reply:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-11#post-9596496



> Missed this one earlier.


Because , for all the years you've been here at TSG, you still don't seem to know how to format a quote.



> But of course as you are aware the Extent is not controlled by temperatures so much as currents and winds.


LOL!
And what changed?










You're only making a fool of yourself


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Vilas, I am sorry, but if you cannot see that dismissing others opinions, including renowned Scientists by declaring that they are "Flat Earther", "Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists" or "Tin Foil Hat wearers" is not
> "
> *Definition of ad hominem*
> (Entry 1 of 2)
> 
> 1 *: *appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an _ad hominem_ argument
> 2 *: *marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made made an _ad hominem_ personal attack on his rival
> "
> Especially point 2.
> 
> I still do not understand where you are coming from, I do not know any Sceptics that do not accept "Climate Change", Climate has always changed.
> I also do not know any that do not accept that the world has warmed since the last Ice Age and also since the LIA we are after all in an interglacial period.
> But I do know a lot of them do not accept that our current warming is man made or anything unusual.
> So I don't know what is as plain as the nose on your or my face, perhaps you could give me some pointers of what to look for.


Since I made a response in reply to Tim's, here's my view:

You are feeling guilty because the statements fit you like a glove.
So now you try to save face.

But you forgot how you entered this thread:

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-9#post-9596299



> Chawbacon, I agree with you, however you are wasting your time with Johnnyb who is just a Warmist Troll.
> All the signs are there, sarkiness, "denier", ad homs, "Fox News", but no substance.
> I expect he is about 20-25 with no historical experience of so called Climate Change.
> He is a Consensus believer and has faith instead of being sceptical, the very essence of Science.


You like to dish out crap, but when you identified with negatives in a discussion about ignorance and stupidity, you see yourself and only compound the issue by becoming a chronic hypocrite.
And recently added intellectual dishonesty to the growing list.

Grow up.

Actually add something of value, either way, to the thread.


----------



## Johnny b

Holy Crap.....it 57F in Beijing


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> .......
> 
> So I don't know what is as plain as the nose on your or my face, perhaps you could give me some pointers of what to look for.


Valis will most likely agree, read to understand rather than search the Internet for specific combinations of words that you think support your position.

Skepticism in science is part of the scientific method. It's purpose is to find fault in order to bring a more correct understanding. 
There are no skeptics among deniers.
Nor are there any skeptics among the doomsday crowd that proclaims the end of the world in 12 years.
They have agendas and cherry pick data and distort concepts to prove their points.


----------



## Johnny b

BTW, OBP......I've replied to most if not all of your questions and challenges.

It's about time for you to start replying to my questions to you.


----------



## OBP

Johnny b said:


> BTW, OBP......I've replied to most if not all of your questions and challenges.
> 
> It's about time for you to start replying to my questions to you.


No you haven't.
You did not say whether you believe the 97% Concenus.
You did not respond to the fact that CO2 is NOT the control knob, H2O is or explain why it isn't.
You did not respond to the question about 1997 being warmer than now.

You have pointed out that both you and NASA think that the Volcanoes under the Antarctic are stable , even though they had not even confirmed their presence until 2017. Not exactly a lot of history to establish their Stability.
You condescendingly suggested that I was confused about NASA/NCDC/NOAA, when it is you who are confused as NCDC and NOAA are like GISS part of NASA.
I have actually used their website for research, have you?
You quoted the 4% increase in CO2 per Annum without clarifying that it is 4% of 0.04% of the atmosphere.

I deliberately asked Valis for some pointers, so I ask you the same, what evidence do you accept as proof that AGW (you have already said it is not CAGW) is real.

You seem to think that Korean Ceramic Fuel Cells could be the future, even though the Australian Company went broke and totally ignore MSRs.
You also seem to think Renewables are cheap, when in fact that are not, those countries with the highest penetration of renewables also have the highest overall Electricity Prices.

But as I am an irrelevant poster it doesn't really matter what I think does it?

ps which of your many verbose questions would you like an answer to?


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> No you haven't.
> You did not say whether you believe the 97% Concenus.
> You did not respond to the fact that CO2 is NOT the control knob, H2O is or explain why it isn't.
> You did not respond to the question about 1997 being warmer than now.
> 
> You have pointed out that both you and NASA think that the Volcanoes under the Antarctic are stable , even though they had not even confirmed their presence until 2017. Not exactly a lot of history to establish their Stability.
> You condescendingly suggested that I was confused about NASA/NCDC/NOAA, when it is you who are confused as NCDC and NOAA are like GISS part of NASA.
> I have actually used their website for research, have you?
> You quoted the 4% increase in CO2 per Annum without clarifying that it is 4% of 0.04% of the atmosphere.
> 
> I deliberately asked Valis for some pointers, so I ask you the same, what evidence do you accept as proof that AGW (you have already said it is not CAGW) is real.
> 
> You seem to think that Korean Ceramic Fuel Cells could be the future, even though the Australian Company went broke and totally ignore MSRs.
> You also seem to think Renewables are cheap, when in fact that are not, those countries with the highest penetration of renewables also have the highest overall Electricity Prices.
> 
> But as I am an irrelevant poster it doesn't really matter what I think does it?
> 
> ps which of your many verbose questions would you like an answer to?


You are more than irrelevant. 
A sophist, a chronic hypocrite, intellectually dishonest, and a fool.
And the above is not name calling.
I've pointed out your disreputable presence repeatedly.

You don't like my replies because I'm not going to provide you with simplistic either/or fallacies.
It's just not going to happen according to the wishes of your denier mentality.



> You did not respond to the question about 1997 being warmer than now.


Thank you for that. An excellent example of your ignorance concerning the differences between weather and climate and the pace of global warming.
I even predicted you'd make an issue of cherry picking data that fits your denier mentality, but ignores the reality of trends.



> Not exactly a lot of history to establish their Stability.


For you, it's either an issue of reading comprehension, or just the denier mental complex you project.
Read the link you posted again, fool. You posted it, you own it.

From your link which I agree with:



> Although the heat source *isn't a new or increasing threat*


Do you understand the meaning of those words?
This is about physics and geology, not dumbarse sophistry.



> You condescendingly suggested that I was confused about NASA/NCDC/NOAA, when it is you who are confused as NCDC and NOAA are like GISS part of NASA.


You are confused.
You don't seem to be able to project stable, meaningful statements.
You post confused thoughts and then backpedal as if it's someone else's fault.



> I have actually used their website for research, have you?


Actually, I used to post a lot from Goddard until Hanson made the mistake of accepting help from liberals in his battle with the Bush administration.
I still read it from time to time, but not so much any more.

Most of my time is spent reading and posting about the problems the US has with the current fascist administration.

The issue of climate change/global warming has been pretty much an accepted concept in the scientific realm.
Mostly the deniers are old discredited deniers or, like you, pseudo intellects pontificating and blowing hot air, 



> You quoted the 4% increase in CO2 per Annum without clarifying that it is 4% of 0.04% of the atmosphere.


Again with the misrepresentations. I posted 4% into the environment. And noted the oceans were already supersaturated. And it's accumulative.
Read this and watch the video if the words seem too big 
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm





It's called the 'carbon cycle' 



> You seem to think that Korean Ceramic Fuel Cells could be the future, even though the Australian Company went broke and totally ignore MSRs.


I think there are a number of alternatives to coal that will function cleaner and more efficiently.
And I think you don't know squat.



> You also seem to think Renewables are cheap, when in fact that are not, those countries with the highest penetration of renewables also have the highest overall Electricity Prices.


The US also uses wind farms and hydro. They are in use and cheaper/cleaner with lower prices to the consumer than coal fired units.
Natural gas may not be renewable, but it's also cheaper, cleaner with lower prices to the consumer than coal. I posted the links else where at TSG .



> I deliberately asked Valis for some pointers, so I ask you the same, what evidence do you accept as proof that AGW


You like skepticism, here you go:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm



> But as I am an irrelevant poster it doesn't really matter what I think does it?


Not one damn bit. All that matters are facts and I do not mean the 'alternative' kind you embrace.

Gotta go, company.
If I missed some of your BS. I'll address it later.

And you still haven't responded to questions I posted in the recent past.


----------



## Johnny b

I'm back with some time to spare and what did I over look?

This incredible misrepresentation of the effect of H2O.


> You did not respond to the fact that CO2 is NOT the control knob, H2O is or explain why it isn't.


H2O is a greenhouse gas that exists essentially in chemical equilibrium.
It does not have a varying effect on global warming.
When concentrations reach a certain point, it rains. RAINS!!!
Do you understand what that means?
It's a phase change that removes excess H20 from the atmosphere as H2O evaporates from the surface of the Earth.......also a phase change. The energy of one process balances out the other.

Take a couple minutes to let that sink in.

Guess what? I say 'guess' because I don't think you can rationally come to a conclusion.

CO2 does not precipitate out of the atmosphere nor does it evaporate from the surface of the Earth.
It is released as a gas from natural sources and man's activities and and moves as shown in the carbon cycle I recently posted.

You post the damnest ignorance with trick questions thinking no one has seen them before.

H2O is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but because it exists essentially in an energy equilibrium, has little effect in creating changes.

Want some 'science'?
Here's from the ACS ( American Chemical Society to you ) why H2O is important and needed.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

It's not a control knob that you turn up to change the temperature, temperature increases the ability of the atmosphere to hold more water ( until it .....RAINS!!! ).

Why the hell don't you know or understand this?
It was even mentioned in my intro geology course back in 1965.
Any one taking a meteorological course would be exposed to the concept.
I even had an intro geography course where it was mentioned.

I told you that you'd have to up your game to fool me.
I really meant it!!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Have educational standards dropped so low in England that you don't understand these relationships?
Or you think you can snow me and others in the forum?

H2O concentrations in the atmosphere ( planet wide ) are relatively stable.
CO2 concentrations increase with man's activities and it's cumulative in the atmosphere as the oceans are already super saturated with it.

You waste my time with nonsense!


----------



## Johnny b

> ps which of your many ps which of your many verbose questions would you like an answer to? questions would you like an answer to?


Let's start by asking you how much you know about the word 'verbose'? 

A list that I see no response to or avoidance by asking a question as if it's an answer, a fallacy btw. 


> Do you deny this?
> Do you deny the record keeping.
> Do you deny the receding Ice extents in the Arctic?
> Or is the daily temperature in Beijing of more importance to you?
> *Seriously, do you understand the term ad hominem' ? *
> ......flat earthers
> Please explain to me how a person that believes the Earth is flat could be better described
> please explain how you could describe a person working as a scientist in terms that do not express his stupidity.
> Do you understand the term 'catistrophic'.
> Have you seen anyone post apocalyptic forecasts in this thread?
> Did I miss them?
> ..........To complete that line of thought, using simple logic, no 'tricks'  ,I assume you infer the concept of re-newables is bad?
> Why is the concept 'bad'?
> ........Do you understand the definition of 'coup' in the context you posted?
> 
> 
> 
> OBP: If Global warming is in no way Catastrophic there is absolutely nothing to worry about and the discussion is mute.
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^You mean like the decline of arable land, water shortages in areas where climate changes, where food production becomes more difficult, where life itself becomes stressed?
> ....................
> (this is where you showed incredible intellectual dishonesty by repeating a bogus question I answered correctly the first time)
> 
> 
> 
> OBP: Your whole paragraph on the "CO2 is the Control knob of Earth's Climate " ending with "Do you deny this?" shows how truly brainwashed or ingenious you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, do you deny what I posted or not?
> ......LOL!
> And what changed?
Click to expand...

And through it all, you've not given any scientific reason there is no man made impact on global warming.
Just simply denial and a line of BS that I have addressed.

And a lot of whining about ad hominems 
I can't post what I'm thinking because I do not want to be banned, but I suspect you've got a clue 

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-9#post-9596299



> .......you are wasting your time with Johnnyb who is just a Warmist Troll.
> All the signs are there, sarkiness, "denier", ad homs, "Fox News", but no substance.
> I expect he is about 20-25 with no historical experience of so called Climate Change.
> He is a Consensus believer and has faith instead of being sceptical, the very essence of Science.


^^^^1st post


----------



## Johnny b

OBP.......are you going to even respond to post 176?

Or just ignore it like others?


----------



## Johnny b

Well, you clocked into TSG this morning at 5:07 AM our time.

Do you have at least a yes/no reply for post 178?

Do you have any thoughts of your own on post 176?

Or are you playing google search warrior for the rest of the day in desperation?


----------



## Johnny b

I wish to apologize to the forum and TSG for my recent participation in this thread.
I'm sorry.
A member that represents TSG is supposed to be shown respect no matter he/she claims they are just another member in a conversation.

Old habits die hard and , believe it or not, I didn't want to go in the intense direction seen.
I was a member here at TSG years ago. I joined in 2002.

I learned a lot over time. Made mistakes. Debated the two lawyers that frequented TSG and had to learn and embrace critical thinking to keep up with them.
I also learned a lot of debating tactics that infuriated a lot of members.

Truly, I am trying to restrain myself in this recent confrontation, but the old ways emerge.
I only see two options for me.

Keep going the way it is.
Or ignore and vacate the thread I started.

#2 simply isn't going to happen.
The topic is too serious to back down from, imo.

So I intend to follow and respond.
And I'm going to continue to call BS when I see it.

OBP......your image here was yours to make. That's been done.
I suggest you think of your position as a member of the TSG staff and participate accordingly.
TSG doesn't need the crap that's going on right now.


edit: I will be removing this post 7 pm Eastern daylight savings
edit 2: Since this post has been quoted, no need to clean up the thread. It stays.

Now I'm going to have some fun


----------



## OBP

My my aren't we the impatient one, not that I need to explain myself to you.
Unlike you I am still active on the Forums, actually, you know HELPING people with their Access & Excel problems, this morning it was an Access database issue on VBAX which I satisfactorily resolved.
Plus off course the Virgin Media man came to fix my Internet & Broadband.
Add to that you posted 2 links which I felt needed the courtesy of reading, which I will get to later.

I deliberately made my first post on here to see where you and Valis were coming from after reading your responses to anybody who disagrees with you about the science.
Valis I still do not understand, but you I now get.
I wondered where your aggressive, dismissive, condescending oh so superior attitude came from when responding to others and I was correct.
University and of all things ScepticalScience, which says it all.
You are a typical know it all that thinks others do not read or understand anything you supposedly so easily grasp, never considering that you could be wrong. 
You obviously now only come on TSG to pontificate and spread the AGW religion, post mostly irrelevances and slate Your President, what a come down.

I understand the Carbon Cycle quite well thankyou so I have this for you.
You made the catagoric statement at least twice that the Oceans are supersturated with CO2, well now PROVE IT. Show us all the definitive papers that prove it, not just suggest that it could happen in the future.

So now to post 176.

The link you posted to the ACS was interesting thanyou, although not definitive it does mention a crucial role of that H2O that you so easily dismiss, that of Albedo.
The very reason that you disparage the concept of H2O controlling anything ie Condensing in to Clouds an thus RAIN is one of the most important aspects of it's presence.
Quote "Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth's surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone - it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one."
But it did not mention that it drastically cools on a summer day.
But of course the converse (lack of cloud) is also true, you stated "H2O concentrations in the atmosphere ( planet wide ) are relatively stable."
"Relatively" is a great word for hiding behind, perhaps you are not aware of this Graph









Notice anything?
And before you use the derogatory it is only from a "Blogger" this particular blogger collects together all of your beloved Scientific data and presents it for others to use, complete with links to the original data where possible.

You also posted a nice link to sceptical (anything but)science.
I suggest that you read the comments, settled science my foot.


----------



## OBP

Johnny b said:


> I wish to apologize to the forum and TSG for my recent participation in this thread.
> I'm sorry.
> A member that represents TSG is supposed to be shown respect no matter he/she claims they are just another member in a conversation.
> 
> Old habits die hard and , believe it or not, I didn't want to go in the intense direction seen.
> I was a member here at TSG years ago. I joined in 2002.
> 
> I learned a lot over time. Made mistakes. Debated the two lawyers that frequented TSG and had to learn and embrace critical thinking to keep up with them.
> I also learned a lot of debating tactics that infuriated a lot of members.
> 
> Truly, I am trying to restrain myself in this recent confrontation, but the old ways emerge.
> I only see two options for me.
> 
> Keep going the way it is.
> Or ignore and vacate the thread I started.
> 
> #2 simply isn't going to happen.
> The topic is too serious to back down from, imo.
> 
> So I intend to follow and respond.
> And I'm going to continue to call BS when I see it.
> 
> OBP......your image here was yours to make. That's been done.
> I suggest you think of your position as a member of the TSG staff and participate accordingly.
> TSG doesn't need the crap that's going on right now.
> 
> edit: I will be removing this post 7 pm Eastern daylight savings


Sorry, no backing down from me either, your thread has been classic you from the beginning, it is your style that puts my back up not your knowledge, just how you present it.
I wanted to provoke the exact reaction that I got and I think you may realise that you got a little carried away.
But that is completely OK by me as I have debated the Science with many warmists that come across exactly as you do.

I was hoping to get into the actual science, but all you do is attack the person and that is not talking about me, because I deliberatley asked for it.

We could be discussing CO2 in the Atmosphere, kinetic v radiative reaction rates, Radiation path lengths, DWIR, Radiative energy of sources, the role of the Oceans as heat sinks, Absorption lines, outgoing Radiation etc.
There is so much to discuss, but if you rubbish every effort of discourse as you did with Chewbacon, so there is little point.
I love to debate most things, someone mentioned Chess Earlier, well I was a League chess player back in the 1980s 200 international point below grandmaster ie 2200 v 2400 for the grandmaster status.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> My my aren't we the impatient one, not that I need to explain myself to you.
> Unlike you I am still active on the Forums, actually, you know HELPING people with their Access & Excel problems, this morning it was an Access database issue on VBAX which I satisfactorily resolved.
> Plus off course the Virgin Media man came to fix my Internet & Broadband.
> Add to that you posted 2 links which I felt needed the courtesy of reading, which I will get to later.
> 
> I deliberately made my first post on here to see where you and Valis were coming from after reading your responses to anybody who disagrees with you about the science.
> Valis I still do not understand, but you I now get.
> I wondered where your aggressive, dismissive, condescending oh so superior attitude came from when responding to others and I was correct.
> University and of all things ScepticalScience, which says it all.
> You are a typical know it all that thinks others do not read or understand anything you supposedly so easily grasp, never considering that you could be wrong.
> You obviously now only come on TSG to pontificate and spread the AGW religion, post mostly irrelevances and slate Your President, what a come down.
> 
> I understand the Carbon Cycle quite well thankyou so I have this for you.
> You made the catagoric statement at least twice that the Oceans are supersturated with CO2, well now PROVE IT. Show us all the definitive papers that prove it, not just suggest that it could happen in the future.
> 
> So now to post 176.
> 
> The link you posted to the ACS was interesting thanyou, although not definitive it does mention a crucial role of that H2O that you so easily dismiss, that of Albedo.
> The very reason that you disparage the concept of H2O controlling anything ie Condensing in to Clouds an thus RAIN is one of the most important aspects of it's presence.
> Quote "Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth's surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone - it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one."
> But it did not mention that it drastically cools on a summer day.
> But of course the converse (lack of cloud) is also true, you stated "H2O concentrations in the atmosphere ( planet wide ) are relatively stable."
> "Relatively" is a great word for hiding behind, perhaps you are not aware of this Graph
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice anything?
> And before you use the derogatory it is only from a "Blogger" this particular blogger collects together all of your beloved Scientific data and presents it for others to use, complete with links to the original data where possible.
> 
> You also posted a nice link to sceptical (anything but)science.
> I suggest that you read the comments, settled science my foot.





> My my aren't we the impatient one, not that I need to explain myself to you.


Yes, you do. You have faked intelligence through out our discussion on the topic.
You want to be a skeptic but all you wind up being is a common denier parroting other deniers.



> Unlike you I am still active on the Forums, actually, you know HELPING people with their Access & Excel problems, this morning it was an Access database issue on VBAX which I satisfactorily resolved.


You are confused again.
Irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
And I've seen your 'numerous' help at TSG lately....... only to slander me and butcher science..Dude, you aren't fooling anyone. What you post, where and the topic can be seen here .

https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768544/

The last time you 'helped' someone at TSG was on April 12.
All your posts since have been in this thread. All of them!!!!!

I see nothing here either since 2016:
https://forums.techguy.org/members/obp.179112/



> I deliberately made my first post on here to see where you and Valis were coming from after reading your responses to anybody who disagrees with you about the science.
> Valis I still do not understand, but you I now get.



How can I respond to such absurdities? LOL!
You're only treating us the way you mangle science . Poorly.



> I wondered where your aggressive, dismissive, condescending oh so superior attitude came from when responding to others and I was correct.
> University and of all things ScepticalScience, which says it all.


Interesting.
I've seen intelligence envy in radical fundamentalists, but not so much in educated people. Refreshing 



> You are a typical know it all that thinks others do not read or understand anything you supposedly so easily grasp, never considering that you could be wrong.


'Could be' is so subjective.
You are wrong 



> I understand the Carbon Cycle quite well thankyou so I have this for you.


You don't have a clue. You demonstrate it all the time.



> You made the catagoric statement at least twice that the Oceans are supersturated with CO2, well now PROVE IT.


Easy peasy. Don't even need a link.
CO2 saturates the oceans to the point calcium carbonate forms as a solid,acidifying the oceans. Kills aquatic life in the process. It's happening. The oceans are being acidified,
The point, it takes super saturation to drive the process and gaseous CO2 levels can only reach so far before net absorption becomes nil. Thus limiting how much can be absorbed from the atmosphere in that carbon cycle that you haven't a clue about.
What is absorbed is ( edit: mostly ) expelled. As I posted, the atmosphere is now the repository of gaseous CO2 emissions.

And It's accumulative, year after year.

But you knew that 
Well, now you do 
( edit: a lot new info and some correction to the above, in later posts about Ocean Acidification)



> The link you posted to the ACS was interesting thanyou, although not definitive it does mention a crucial role of that H2O that you so easily dismiss, that of Albedo.


No, it just doesn't play the part deniers seem to depend on.



> There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth's surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone - it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.


The underlined words seem to mean nothing to you.



> Notice anything?
> And before you use the derogatory it is only from a "Blogger" this particular blogger collects together all of your beloved Scientific data and presents it for others to use, complete with links to the original data where possible.


I deleted this section and replaced it after realizing where you obtained the graph.
The graph labeled HadCRUT3 and ISCCP.
The blogger:
https://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm
So, who are they?
https://www.mn.uio.no/geo/personer/vit/geohyd/olehum/index.html
Ole Humlum is one.
Let's take a closer look at who this blogger is:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/humlum-at-it-again.html
He's a denier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Humlum
Again a denier

https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/dr-ole-humlum/
He made that denier list

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ou-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers


> The core of the analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth's climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.


 And you should read what followed in the article 

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/Climate Misinformers/2011-05-11-Prof Humlum and his fellowship (Norway) - back again.html
WOW!

So who is ArcticHERO?
Why it's Ole Humlum 
http://www.arctichero.org/ownerinformation.htm

On A second look, you tell me
All you did was get a cherry picked graph from a climate denier,



> "Relatively" is a great word for hiding behind, perhaps you are not aware of this Graph


Actually, it's a great backdrop because it takes in the totality of the model.
You're addressing localization as did the comment in the article as an example of the effects.
The graph address a global model picked out by a climate denier with out a description by it's original source .



> I suggest that you read the comments, settled science my foot.


I hide nothing. But you certainly got nothing out of the Links I've provided. That's on you.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Sorry, no backing down from me either, your thread has been classic you from the beginning, it is your style that puts my back up not your knowledge, just how you present it.
> I wanted to provoke the exact reaction that I got and I think you may realise that you got a little carried away.
> But that is completely OK by me as I have debated the Science with many warmists that come across exactly as you do.
> 
> I was hoping to get into the actual science, but all you do is attack the person and that is not talking about me, because I deliberatley asked for it.
> 
> We could be discussing CO2 in the Atmosphere, kinetic v radiative reaction rates, Radiation path lengths, DWIR, Radiative energy of sources, the role of the Oceans as heat sinks, Absorption lines, outgoing Radiation etc.
> There is so much to discuss, but if you rubbish every effort of discourse as you did with Chewbacon, so there is little point.
> I love to debate most things, someone mentioned Chess Earlier, well I was a League chess player back in the 1980s 200 international point below grandmaster ie 2200 v 2400 for the grandmaster status.


It will just have to stay for all to see 
You got the message and yet you start on a course of self destruction.
I've got nothing to lose but my membership.
I value it.
You have a lot to lose in credibility as a TSG Trusted Advisor.

Apparently credibility means little to you. 

I should point out, It didn't have to go that way.
All you had to be is reasonable.
And you didn't exactly introduce yourself to me in any such manner LOL!

Well...carry on 



> I wanted to provoke.....


I would have eventually satisfied your needs.
So, all you did was speed up your frustration. 



> I was hoping to get into the actual science, but all you do is attack the person and that is not talking about me, because I deliberatley asked for it.


LOL!
Translation someone.
I don't speak mentally deranged 



> We could be discussing CO2 in the Atmosphere, kinetic v radiative reaction rates, Radiation path lengths, DWIR, Radiative energy of sources, the role of the Oceans as heat sinks, Absorption lines, outgoing Radiation etc.


Or we could be discussing what has happened since the Industrial Revolution started , the results on the environment and why.
Problem is, you seem to deny history, data and what has been found to drive the element that has sped up global warming.

It's called a snow job. Gobbledygook, misinformation, lies and incredibly bad science to cover up reality.

And let's face it. All you're going to do is a copy and paste exercise of deniers sites as I follow you trying to disprove each and every BS claim you make.

Been there, done that in the past.
Not again.

Address reality.



> I love to debate most things,


Just not this one and it's pretty damn obvious.



> well I was a League chess player back in the 1980s 200 international point below grandmaster ie 2200 v 2400 for the grandmaster status.


I can sit on a toilet as well as the next person but I don't brag about it.


----------



## Johnny b

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-12#post-9596830


----------



## OBP

OK, I get itt now, obviously you are old and senility has set in.
Typical of you, you jump in with both feet without actually reading what I said.
You also seem to have frogotten how to actually follow someones postings.
Based onyour own ineptitude you actually I am lying.
I actually said "this morning it was an Access database issue on VBAX", does VBAX look anything like TSG?
As you are so pathetically poor at doing it for youself I will show you.
http://www.vbaexpress.com/forum/showthread.php?64988-Extracting-data-from-one-record-into-a-table

As to the help on TSG that I have provided or try to provide see
https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768583/

I just cannot get over your Ego and Hubris, you show proof of your comment by quoting "youself" 

Ocean Acidification, you can't even damn well get the terminology correct, it is less Alkaline, the Oceans are not Acidic at all.

I am off to Poker, as you can see I actually have a life outside this Forum, shame about you.

ps I expect you apology about Lying in writing, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> OK, I get itt now, obviously you are old and senility has set in.
> Typical of you, you jump in with both feet without actually reading what I said.
> You also seem to have frogotten how to actually follow someones postings.
> Based onyour own ineptitude you actually I am lying.
> I actually said "this morning it was an Access database issue on VBAX", does VBAX look anything like TSG?
> As you are so pathetically poor at doing it for youself I will show you.
> http://www.vbaexpress.com/forum/showthread.php?64988-Extracting-data-from-one-record-into-a-table
> 
> As to the help on TSG that I have provided or try to provide see
> https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768583/
> 
> I just cannot get over your Ego and Hubris, you show proof of your comment by quoting "youself"
> 
> Ocean Acidification, you can't even damn well get the terminology correct, it is less Alkaline, the Oceans are not Acidic at all.
> 
> I am off to Poker, as you can see I actually have a life outside this Forum, shame about you.
> 
> ps I expect you apology about Lying in writing, but I won't hold my breath.


Yep, I made a big mistake.
I apologize.

So what did you post?



> you know HELPING people with their Access & Excel problems, this morning it was an Access database issue on VBAX which I satisfactorily resolved.


Not knowing VBAX was a web site, my own ignorance is at fault.

I own my mistakes and apologize.

I suggest you try it also.

I shall continue any way 



> Ocean Acidification, you can't even damn well get the terminology correct, it is less Alkaline, the Oceans are not Acidic at all.


And we start off again with ignorance in the lead.
Quick link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification


> Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO
> 2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and ocean acidification involves a shift towards pH-neutral conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).[3] An estimated 30-40% of the carbon dioxide from human activity released into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.[4][5] To achieve chemical equilibrium, some of it reacts with the water to form carbonic acid


https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3

https://www.noaa.gov/education/reso...oasts-education-resources/ocean-acidification

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

You are still the master of ignorance 
And you don't own up to your gaffs and misrepresentations.

And I will edit out my false claims about you.
Edit: If I missed one, point it out.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> .................
> 
> As to the help on TSG that I have provided or try to provide see
> https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768583/
> 
> I just cannot get over your Ego and Hubris, you show proof of your comment by quoting "youself"
> ....................................


That link is blocked.

This one isn't
https://forums.techguy.org/members/obp.179112/

This one isn't either
https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768593/

This is what I see plus a couple more going back to the 13th:









Well, I make mistakes, but I do not try to fool the forum.



> I just cannot get over your Ego and Hubris, you show proof of your comment by quoting "youself"


You mean where I had to show you faked an exchange with me ?
Where I responded to a point you made in a messed up quote format YOU posted and was so hard to fathom I missed it the first time through your post?

Strange. Why didn't you own your mistake? Seemed pretty simple and easy to me.
And now you think there's some kind of psychological advantage of posting it again?

One thing I learned well in debating, own your mistakes and move on. They only come back to haunt you, no matter a chess prodigy or an actual genius.
A genius you do not seem to be.


----------



## Johnny b

Mostly just a review of past global warming topics. Interesting, scientific with out all the denier BS Receptivity

NOAA
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/did-global-warming-stop-1998

* Did global warming stop in 1998? *



> Did global warming stop in 1998?
> Author:
> Rebecca Lindsey
> September 4, 2018
> 
> No, but thanks to natural variability, volcanic eruptions, and relatively low solar activity, the rate of average global surface warming from 1998-2012 was slower than it had been for two to three decades leading up to it.


But what about 1997? OBP made a big point about.... why was 1997 warmer than now?
The graphs:



What in the world was he referring to?
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-10#post-9596438


> so do you believe that it is now warmer than 1997?
> Or alterantively that they made a big mistake and did not correct it?


I think OBP was fishing and thought the had the bait to prove something.

Well, there's the graphs to tell the tale.



> Those who deny the scientific evidence of human-caused global warming turned the slowdown into a slogan: "Global warming stopped in 1998." In scientific journals and assessment reports, climate experts described the episode as a "pause" or "hiatus" in the previous decades' rapid warming: they knew it wouldn't last.
> 
> Not only was 1998-2012 the warmest 15-year period on record at the time, but greenhouse gases continued to climb to new record highs, and other climate indicators continued to show the impacts of long-term, global-scale warming: subsurface ocean heating, global sea level rise, the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, and record-low Arctic sea ice extent.


And it does look warmer now than in 1997.


----------



## Johnny b

Another review of past global warming topics. Interesting, scientific with out all the denier BS Receptivity

NOAA
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide



> Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide






> Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years, based on EPICA (ice core) data. The peaks and valleys in carbon dioxide levels track the coming and going of ice ages (low carbon dioxide) and warmer interglacials (higher levels). Throughout these cycles, atmospheric carbon dioxide was never higher than 300 ppm; in 2017, it reached 405.0 ppm (black dot). NOAA Climate.gov, based on EPICA Dome C data (Lüthi, D., et al., 2008) provided by NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program.





> The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2017 was 405.0 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.





> In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO2 amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°-3°C (3.6°-5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era


I suspect OBP's reply will be....that's one hell of a coincidence.


----------



## Johnny b

Wow, I am behind the times.
New things to learn that replace some old thoughts.
I wasn't aware so much CO2 was still being absorbed by the Oceans.

* CO2 and Ocean Acidification: Causes, Impacts, Solutions *
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/global-warming-impacts/co2-ocean-acidification



> The ocean has absorbed about 29 percent of global CO2 emissions since the end of the preindustrial era. In the last decade (from 2008-2017), we've dumped into the atmosphere about 40 gigatons of emissions of heat-trapping gases each year from the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change-or the equivalent to 252 million blue whales! All this carbon pollution is changing the ocean's chemistry, slowing its ability to uptake CO2, making it more acidic and harming shellfish and other marine life we depend on.


Too much to copy and haste.

Highlights


> For millions of years, the exchange of CO2 between the surface of the ocean and the atmosphere remained constant. In the past 150 years, humans have greatly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and changing land-use practices. As a result, the ocean has absorbed about 29 percent of this additional carbon.
> ..................
> Surface waters are now 30 percent more acidic than they were at the start of the industrial era. Ocean acidification is now happening at a faster rate than at any point in the last 66 million years, and possibly in the last 300 million years.


Impossible.....OBP says there's no such thing and the Oceans are not acidic 
.................



> The rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is driving up ocean surface temperatures and causing ocean acidification. Although warming and acidification are different phenomena, they interact to the detriment of marine ecosystems .
> ....................
> The rate at which water absorbs CO2 decreases as water temperature increases. This means that polar regions like Alaska, where ocean water is relatively cold, can take up more CO2 than the warmer tropics. As a result, polar surface waters are generally acidifying faster than those in other latitudes, and on average, warmer regions of the ocean are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere instead of absorbing it.
> 
> ( I don't think OBP will believe that, he's smarter that all of us and a chess whiz at that )
> 
> Ocean acidification affects the economy, people's livelihoods, and communities
> ( a lot of interesting facts under that header)


Well, for something that OBP tells us doesn't exist, it sounds real and destructive.

Guess I'll have to wait for OBP to post some BS Receptivity denier propaganda to get to the truth


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> ....................
> 
> Ocean Acidification, you can't even damn well get the terminology correct, it is less Alkaline, the Oceans are not Acidic at all.
> 
> I am off to Poker, as you can see I actually have a life outside this Forum, shame about you.
> 
> ps I expect you apology about Lying in writing, but I won't hold my breath.


WOW!
I suppose my last few posts are going to make him really bitter.


----------



## Johnny b

Even the Smithsonian:

* Ocean Acidification *
https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/invertebrates/ocean-acidification



> Ocean acidification is sometimes called "climate change's equally evil twin," and for good reason: it's a significant and harmful consequence of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we don't see or feel because its effects are happening underwater. At least one-quarter of the carbon dioxide (CO2) released by burning coal, oil and gas doesn't stay in the air, but instead dissolves into the ocean. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed some 525 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, presently around 22 million tons per day.


SO, about 75% of man made CO2 stays in the atmosphere.
And the other 25% stays in the oceans while driving numerous 'side' chemical reactions ( acidification ).
That does sound like a saturation point has been exceeded.
I made the point. Concentrations greater than the saturation point would be aggressive in driving such a model. Super saturation.

Acidification exists and the oceans have seen a a 25% increase in acidity. ( https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/oceans/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ ) 
And the oceans are supersaturated with CO2

A lot of info at the link explaining ocean acidification.


----------



## Johnny b

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-12#post-9596830

Looks like a lot can be added to that list, OBP.

Think you're up for it?


----------



## OBP

Well after your apology I was going go easy you on, because you are obviously not very well as you intimated on one of your posts, but as you continue with attacking my
Character
Education
Learning ability
and Integrity
I feel compelled to show you up for what you are.
As you have so much difficulty in absorbing more than one set of facts at a time I will break it down for you by one post per topic.
Topic.
You continue to say that I am Lying about what I do on TSG, so let me explain to you where you are going so embarrasingly wrong.
In case you have forgotten TSG is a Computer/IT/Problem HELP Forum, ie providing a SERVICE, that was it's original format.
I started assisting posters back in 2005 in their Access, Excel and Visual Basic for Applications problems, I was the only Access programmer on here at that time, Zack Barresse was the Excel Guru and Anne Troy was the Word Guru. VBAX was the sister site to TSG, but concentrated on VBA, which as you say you have been here longer than me I would have thought you would have known.
As there was no Access programmers at VBAX Anne & Zack asked me to post on there as they had Access programming as well as Access VBA questions.
Since 2005 I have posted 19883 comments on TSG of which 12 are on this post, the other 99.94% are Comments of a technical nature helping others. On VBAX I have only posted 2943 comments, all of a technical nature helping others. The count is lower at VBAX because after a few years others starting helping with Access question one of whom was an MS Master, so I left the posting to him, unfortunately he very rarely posts these days, so I returned at the request of a VBAX administrator to answer a specific question.
I rarely start any posts myself, but there are a few.
Which of course is unlike you, you use this website predominantly for your Climate Change Activism and and Slating President Trump by starting your own threads and then attacking anyone who dares to disagree with you. According to you they are all inept, uneducated, ignorant, Deniers, fronts for deniers or Politically misguided.
So now let me explain why I have not posted since last Friday, I respond to HELP REQUESTS and conining Conversations. Unlike you who just continues to bloviate the same old stuff regardless of responses, which is Thread Bombing.
So as nobody has asked for help, or come back on my comments I have no further HELP comments to make.

Perhaps that is the reason that you do not know how to search on technical matters, so allow me to enlighten you in easy to follow steps, that even you should be able to manage.
After signing in go to the Search at the top right of the forum, click the more button, then in "Posted by Member" enter OBP, in the "Search in Forums" select Business Applications and click the Search Button.
That will show you the last 200 of my posts, 190 of which are this year.
By the way the link I provided before is Blocked if you are not logged in.

So let me sum up for you, between the 2 HELP forums I have posted 22814 helpful comments, which averages 1629/year.
Now remind me what you have done in the 3 years you have posted, 4122 posts, how many of those were actually helping posters with technical issues, how many were responding to a Request for HELP?


----------



## OBP

Topic 2, I posted that I was pretty good Chess Player and you immediately come back with your usual sarcasm "I can sit on a toilet as well as the next person but I don't brag about it. "
Which in the UK is known as "blowing one's own Trumpet"
So what do you call this
"I presented the findings from investigations that brought out the lies of climate deniers
that faked data, used sophistry and even recently addressed and outed Chewbacon's authoritative source.
At TSG, I addressed what the term 'Tricks' meant in the climate realm of science. I addressed the tree ring controversy and showed why the 'hidden decline' never existed to begin with.
I showed the relationship the the 'little ice age' had with global reality.
I addressed the convoluted lies of Monocton and more.
I addressed the Goddard Labs ( NASA to you ) data and controversies involving placement of weather recording equipment, the change in equipment and data format, the expulsion of erratic data from poor placement.

And a whole hell of a lot more."


That is blowing your own Trumpet a great deal.
Unfortunately I have seen none of those things from you, all I see is you googling posting the Usual Climate Change Activist responses favoured by non scepticalscience, the blog run by NASA & Ex NASA activist employees.

However, you missed the point of my little Chess post, there are certain Attributes to being able to
Program Access & Excel
Program and build Database from the ground up in BASIC
Program in Visual Basic
Play Chess
And Problem Solve which was my forte at work.
Those Attributes do not include an inability to understand what I read, or an inability to use logic, or the inability to thoroughly investigate an issue, the inability to find facts, the inability form an opinion and make decisions based all those things.

All of which is what you accuse me of.

Then we have this from you "Or are you playing google search warrior for the rest of the day in desperation? "

Now should we look back from the beginning of this thread and count how many times you use google to post
an argument
a meaning of a word
Climate Activist data
to attack other users.

So what I see from you is Psychological Projection, please rush off to google to check what it means, you accuse others of doing precisely what you do.

But of course you cannot just post a single item you have to thread bomb multiple googles that back up your position, all climate aspect come from Climate Change Activist sites.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Well after your apology I was going go easy you on, because you are obviously not very well as you intimated on one of your posts, but as you continue with attacking my
> Character
> Education
> Learning ability
> and Integrity
> I feel compelled to show you up for what you are.
> As you have so much difficulty in absorbing more than one set of facts at a time I will break it down for you by one post per topic.
> Topic.
> You continue to say that I am Lying about what I do on TSG, so let me explain to you where you are going so embarrasingly wrong.
> In case you have forgotten TSG is a Computer/IT/Problem HELP Forum, ie providing a SERVICE, that was it's original format.
> I started assisting posters back in 2005 in their Access, Excel and Visual Basic for Applications problems, I was the only Access programmer on here at that time, Zack Barresse was the Excel Guru and Anne Troy was the Word Guru. VBAX was the sister site to TSG, but concentrated on VBA, which as you say you have been here longer than me I would have thought you would have known.
> As there was no Access programmers at VBAX Anne & Zack asked me to post on there as they had Access programming as well as Access VBA questions.
> Since 2005 I have posted 19883 comments on TSG of which 12 are on this post, the other 99.94% are Comments of a technical nature helping others. On VBAX I have only posted 2943 comments, all of a technical nature helping others. The count is lower at VBAX because after a few years others starting helping with Access question one of whom was an MS Master, so I left the posting to him, unfortunately he very rarely posts these days, so I returned at the request of a VBAX administrator to answer a specific question.
> I rarely start any posts myself, but there are a few.
> Which of course is unlike you, you use this website predominantly for your Climate Change Activism and and Slating President Trump by starting your own threads and then attacking anyone who dares to disagree with you. According to you they are all inept, uneducated, ignorant, Deniers, fronts for deniers or Politically misguided.
> So now let me explain why I have not posted since last Friday, I respond to HELP REQUESTS and conining Conversations. Unlike you who just continues to bloviate the same old stuff regardless of responses, which is Thread Bombing.
> So as nobody has asked for help, or come back on my comments I have no further HELP comments to make.
> 
> Perhaps that is the reason that you do not know how to search on technical matters, so allow me to enlighten you in easy to follow steps, that even you should be able to manage.
> After signing in go to the Search at the top right of the forum, click the more button, then in "Posted by Member" enter OBP, in the "Search in Forums" select Business Applications and click the Search Button.
> That will show you the last 200 of my posts, 190 of which are this year.
> By the way the link I provided before is Blocked if you are not logged in.
> 
> So let me sum up for you, between the 2 HELP forums I have posted 22814 helpful comments, which averages 1629/year.
> Now remind me what you have done in the 3 years you have posted, 4122 posts, how many of those were actually helping posters with technical issues, how many were responding to a Request for HELP?


Of course.
Nothing has changed.
Your are the same hypocrite that barged into this thread with distortions presented as logic.



> You continue to say that I am Lying about what I do on TSG


I posted the links, even a screen shot.
You've been focused on this thread and posting in it to the exclusivity at TSG
since April 12. You've made no other posts at TSG other than this thread.
See it here:
https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768868/

You seem stuck on me 
Why I certainly don't know other than I don't buy into denier logic.
Well, maybe my pleasant personality LOL!



> I started assisting posters back in 2005 in their Access, Excel and Visual Basic for Applications problems,
> 9Edited for brevity)
> I rarely start any posts myself, but there are a few.


Irrelevant. Off topic.
As to your recent presence at TSG, this sums it up
https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768868/

I've correct my mistake, apologized and owned my mistake.
But the above is hard fact.
https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768868/
Time to move on.



> Which of course is unlike you, you use this website predominantly for your Climate Change Activism and and Slating President Trump by starting your own threads and then attacking anyone who dares to disagree with you.


You whine like a silly little girl.
I 'attack' anything I strongly disagree with 
And that's funny because of the way you entered the thread LOL!
Do I really need to copy and paste it again!



> I respond to HELP REQUESTS and conining ( ? ) Conversations. Unlike you who just continues to bloviate the same old stuff regardless of responses, which is Thread Bombing.


What have you added to the topic?
You dislike me intensely.
I know. Move on 
Oh...forgot about your mystery graph that originated from Humlumb.
Maybe my google search lacked something, but every time I tried a google image search, I only wound up at his 'blog' and then found out he wasn't just a denier, he simply threw out blocks of data to prove his bizarre theories.
And you used him as a source.

LOL!

Talk about being intellectually dishonest 



> That will show you the last 200 of my posts, 190 of which are this year.


And this will show all the posts you made at TSG
https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768868/

Time to move on 

You like to chatter a lot.
So. Here you are with challenges.
The temperature records already exist and they show an increase in the rate of global warming since the Industrial Revolution.
Post your theory on what is doing it.
Science findings can always be corrected to reflect accuracy, but you need to show what and how a process ( other than CO2 as a greenhouse gas ) accomplishes this and what has changed in recent Earth history that brought about that change.

Attempting to prove the issue isn't CO2 concentrations is not the same as proving global warming isn't occurring at a faster rate.

You referred to in an earlier post:


> We could be discussing CO2 in the Atmosphere, kinetic v radiative reaction rates, Radiation path lengths, DWIR, Radiative energy of sources, the role of the Oceans as heat sinks, Absorption lines, outgoing Radiation etc.


Present your argument, but remember, you need to include reasons why the rate of global warming has changed, because it's an issue of causality, and global warming is the effect rather than the cause in the primary discussion.



> So let me sum up for you, between the 2 HELP forums I have posted 22814 helpful comments, which averages 1629/year.
> Now remind me what you have done in the 3 years you have posted, 4122 posts, how many of those were actually helping posters with technical issues, how many were responding to a Request for HELP?


That's why hole punchers and TS cards are handed out


----------



## OBP

Topic 3, which leads on from topic 2 and is a classic example, Ocean Acidification.
The oh so scary story coming from every area of Climate Activism, most of which you have posted.

So let's go back to BASIC FACTS, pun intended, which you love so much. Except when they are used against you of course.
The PH scale is what Chemists use to describe the state of a fluid, especially Water, now I am sure that you learnt that in your Geology lessons many years ago.
The PH scale as you know runs from 0 to 14, below 7 is ACIDIC, 7 is NEUTRAL and above 7 is ALKALINE.
The PH data on line shows that the Oceans PH is Currently about 8.14 and has dropped from 8.25 since 1751 (how the hell they know that for all the oceans in 1751 I have no idea).

So now tell me, on the PH scale how ACIDIC is Sea water, it is NOT you brainwashed moron.
It did not become become MORE ACIDIC since 1751 because to do so it would have had to already be ACIDIC and start at 7 or below.
The correct term is that the Oceans are currently being Nuetrilised or becoming less Alkaline.
So despite all the Climate Activists postings that you made that it is Acidification it is not the correct Chemical term.

But heaven forbid don't let that stop you posting your Activist bull, .


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Topic 2, I posted that I was pretty good Chess Player and you immediately come back with your usual sarcasm "I can sit on a toilet as well as the next person but I don't brag about it. "
> Which in the UK is known as "blowing one's own Trumpet"
> So what do you call this
> "I presented the findings from investigations that brought out the lies of climate deniers
> that faked data, used sophistry and even recently addressed and outed Chewbacon's authoritative source.
> At TSG, I addressed what the term 'Tricks' meant in the climate realm of science. I addressed the tree ring controversy and showed why the 'hidden decline' never existed to begin with.
> I showed the relationship the the 'little ice age' had with global reality.
> I addressed the convoluted lies of Monocton and more.
> I addressed the Goddard Labs ( NASA to you ) data and controversies involving placement of weather recording equipment, the change in equipment and data format, the expulsion of erratic data from poor placement.
> 
> And a whole hell of a lot more."
> 
> That is blowing your own Trumpet a great deal.
> Unfortunately I have seen none of those things from you, all I see is you googling posting the Usual Climate Change Activist responses favoured by non scepticalscience, the blog run by NASA & Ex NASA activist employees.
> 
> However, you missed the point of my little Chess post, there are certain Attributes to being able to
> Program Access & Excel
> Program and build Database from the ground up in BASIC
> Program in Visual Basic
> Play Chess
> And Problem Solve which was my forte at work.
> Those Attributes do not include an inability to understand what I read, or an inability to use logic, or the inability to thoroughly investigate an issue, the inability to find facts, the inability form an opinion and make decisions based all those things.
> 
> All of which is what you accuse me of.
> 
> Then we have this from you "Or are you playing google search warrior for the rest of the day in desperation? "
> 
> Now should we look back from the beginning of this thread and count how many times you use google to post
> an argument
> a meaning of a word
> Climate Activist data
> to attack other users.
> 
> So what I see from you is Psychological Projection, please rush off to google to check what it means, you accuse others of doing precisely what you do.
> 
> But of course you cannot just post a single item you have to thread bomb multiple googles that back up your position, all climate aspect come from Climate Change Activist sites.


You do blow a mean trumpet 



> So what do you call this


Mostly responses to your BS.

Like this:


> At TSG, I addressed what the term 'Tricks' meant in the climate realm of science. I addressed the tree ring controversy and showed why the 'hidden decline' never existed to begin with.


Yes. So?
You merely like to engage in sophistry. Didn't I point that out?
Those were discussed at TSG in a 'Debate' forum.
Read the title of this forum:
*Controversial Topics*



> However, you missed the point of my little Chess post, there are certain Attributes to being able to
> Program Access & Excel
> Program and build Database from the ground up in BASIC
> Program in Visual Basic
> Play Chess
> And Problem Solve which was my forte at work.


Sincerely, you need to polish up on your excuses, not your accolades.
If you are a genius, there is a reality that makes you even more the fool.
One day I'll explain it to you 



> All of which is what you accuse me of.


Would you like some cheese with the whine? 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well....it's a duck 
And you are in the denier category by your one volition. 



> Then we have this from you "Or are you playing google search warrior for the rest of the day in desperation?


Seems I made a few points there.


carry on.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Topic 3, which leads on from topic 2 and is a classic example, Ocean Acidification.
> The oh so scary story coming from every area of Climate Activism, most of which you have posted.
> 
> So let's go back to BASIC FACTS, pun intended, which you love so much. Except when they are used against you of course.
> The PH scale is what Chemists use to describe the state of a fluid, especially Water, now I am sure that you learnt that in your Geology lessons many years ago.
> The PH scale as you know runs from 0 to 14, below 7 is ACIDIC, 7 is NEUTRAL and above 7 is ALKALINE.
> The PH data on line shows that the Oceans PH is Currently about 8.14 and has dropped from 8.25 since 1751 (how the hell they know that for all the oceans in 1751 I have no idea).
> 
> So now tell me, on the PH scale how ACIDIC is Sea water, it is NOT you brainwashed moron.
> It did not become become MORE ACIDIC since 1751 because to do so it would have had to already be ACIDIC and start at 7 or below.
> The correct term is that the Oceans are currently being Nuetrilised or becoming less Alkaline.
> So despite all the Climate Activists postings that you made that it is Acidification it is not the correct Chemical term.
> 
> But heaven forbid don't let that stop you posting your Activist bull, .


BS sophistry.

Increasing acidity is the same as decreasing alkalinity.
Increasing alkalinity is the same as decreasing acidity.

Yours is simply the sophistry of the denier cult.

Your terminology would reflect in terms like "alkalinity reduction" or "reduced alkalinity"

Sophistry.
The chemical results are the same.

Just another example of intellectual dishonesty to cloud a discussion 
You inferred earlier I presented the oceans are acid.
Shame on you


----------



## valis

OBP said:


> But heaven forbid don't let that stop you posting your Activist bull, .


@OBP, I've edited your quote to remove vulgarity. Even though this is CT, it's still a family oriented forum.

thanks ,

v


----------



## Johnny b

Darn, I missed it


----------



## valis

i know, you actually quoted it. Had to edit that was well.


----------



## Johnny b

Guess I didn't pay any attention to it. 

Surprised a 'Trusted Advisor' would forget forum manners.


----------



## OBP

Topic 4.
1997 Global Temperature, again you you googled and bombed the thread with graphs based on current Data.
Am I going to Cherry Pick, you bet your doozy I am.

So here is a little test for you.
What was the Actual Average Global Temperature in the "hottest year ever" 2016, not the anomaly, the Actual temperature in degrees C or degrees F?

Well I don't think you know that, so I will help you out, if you go to this NASA/NCDC/NOAA Site

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

You will see that it is Baseline 13.9°C (57.0°F) + the Anomaly of 0.94°C (1.69°F) = 14.84°C or 58.69°F.

Got it 58.69F.

Now go to the same website for 2017 here

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713

Note the ranking chart where 1997 is 57.0F + 1.13F = 58.13 degrees

Now go to the same website for 1997 here

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

Wow that must be a mistake surely. It says 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997.
But it gets worse, now look at 1998

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813

that looks suspiciously like 1998 was 0.3F warmer than 1997 ie 62.75F.

Now don't forget to read the bull disclaimer of why it is so much different to now, "*PLEASE NOTE:* The ranks and temperature anomalies in this report represent the values known at the time the report was issued. The actual ranks will change as subsequent years are added to the dataset. The anomalies themselves may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved. Also, in 2009, NCDC switched to ERSST version 3b (from version 2) as a component of its global surface temperature dataset. Because the versions have slightly different methodologies, the calculated temperature anomalies will differ slightly"

So there you have it from the horses mouth. They changed the Methodology and thus the DATA you so love.
Obviously those useless idiots back in 1998/1999/2000 didn't know how to work out the Global Temperature correctly.
Yet you expect us to believe them when they say so and so year was 0.01C or 0.2F warmer than before when their METHODOLOGY can change the past by 4.62 degrees C?

Please note that none of this post is actually for you, it is for anybody else to see for themselves what happened, as I know you will come up with lots of reasons to excuse it.


----------



## valis

@OBP, that's the second time in a very few minutes I've had to edit your post for vulgarity. This one earned you a warning.


----------



## OBP

I see your last 2 responses and you do not answer anything at all, especially your mistakes about my posting.

You even go on to say "You've made no other posts at TSG other than this thread."
You keep herping on about my "intellectually dishonest" and there you are spouting the exact same bull.
I have not Posted because there are no questions on Access to comment on.
Today there is an Excel question, which if no one else bothers to answer I will do so.
Why don't you make yourself useful and go and answer it instead?

When you are so dishonest about your responses with all your stupid wisecracks there is very little point in debating with you which is why I am now posting for others to read and will continue to do so.
I will let them decide who is the intellectually honest one and who is the snarky, insulting egotist.
My original post read you like a book.
You are on IGNORE.


----------



## OBP

valis said:


> @OBP, that's the second time in a very few minutes I've had to edit your post for vulgarity. This one earned you a warning.


I only have one thing to say to you
find another ACCESS/EXCEL programmer and goodbye.


----------



## valis

Well, that earned you a temporary ban, pending further admin review.

thanks, 

v


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Topic 4.
> 1997 Global Temperature, again you you googled and bombed the thread with graphs based on current Data.
> Am I going to Cherry Pick, you bet your doozy I am.
> ........................


I'm pretty sure I posted I was not going to get stuck in that rut of following deniers around.

The temperature records already exist and they show an increase in the rate of global warming since the Industrial Revolution.
Post your theory on what is doing it.
Science findings can always be corrected to reflect accuracy, but you need to show what and how a process ( other than CO2 as a greenhouse gas ) accomplishes this and what has changed in recent Earth history that brought about that change.
Attempting to prove the issue isn't CO2 concentrations is not the same as proving global warming isn't occurring at a faster rate.

And I will continue to post and share articles I find concerning global warming and ocean acidification.

You came into this thread to challenge.
So make it, but remember my second paragraph. That's what you need to address.

Still looks the same to me 
https://forums.techguy.org/search/32768892/


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> I see your last 2 responses and you do not answer anything at all, especially your mistakes about my posting.
> 
> You even go on to say "You've made no other posts at TSG other than this thread."
> You keep herping on about my "intellectually dishonest" and there you are spouting the exact same bull.
> I have not Posted because there are no questions on Access to comment on.
> Today there is an Excel question, which if no one else bothers to answer I will do so.
> Why don't you make yourself useful and go and answer it instead?
> 
> When you are so dishonest about your responses with all your stupid wisecracks there is very little point in debating with you which is why I am now posting for others to read and will continue to do so.
> I will let them decide who is the intellectually honest one and who is the snarky, insulting egotist.
> My original post read you like a book.
> You are on IGNORE.


Wow.
What an emotional outburst for an expert chess player, and when things were just starting to get interesting 

And a fall back to his original ad hominems to boot.

Does this mean you intend not to defend your denier position?


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Well, that earned you a temporary ban, pending further admin review.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> v


I didn't see your ^ post till i made my last one.
If you want me to delete some, just say so and it's done.


----------



## valis

Nah, that's just info in general anyhow. No worries.


----------



## Cookiegal

After reading back through most of this exchange, I find fault with both parties involved.

OBP, it is clear to me that you were the instigator with your unprovoked initial post in this thread wherein you insulted Johnny b with all sorts of name-calling and derogatory remarks. When posting, if you disagree with one's opinions or stance on any matter, it's fine to challenge those assertions with your own but it's not appropriate to attack the member who expresses them. This behaviour on your part has been displayed repeatedly throughout the exchange and is not acceptable from any member. If you have an issue with another member then it's your responsibility to report the matter so that the Moderators can intervene, if deemed necessary.

In addition, you have used profanity in two of your posts here that had to be edited by a Moderator. When advised of those edits and a subsequent infraction you responded with profanity directed at the Moderator. This could have earned you a permanent banning but the Moderator chose to issue a temporary 3-day banning of your account. I support the Moderator's actions and will leave it at that. However, I have removed the Trusted Advisor designation and reverted your membership status back to that of a regular member as your behaviour no longer fits the criteria we look for when choosing staff members.

Johnny b,

You know full well that you were not an innocent party in this exchange, often retorting with similar unflattering comments so a large part of the bove applies to you as well. With your past history you, of all people, should know better than to perpetuate this conflict. You were supposed to keep your nose clean this time around. I read your apology in the thread but the damage was already done and the behaviour continued even afterward so in all fairness I have assessed an infraction on you as well which involves a loss of two points.


----------



## Bastiat

Wow, I missed all the fun.
Johnny b, as one of the two lawyers referenced earlier we did have some fun! I wonder where the other putz lawyer is, sorry I mean moldy lawyer. He is the self styled Weapon of Mass Instruction.


----------



## valis

Thanks Cookiegal.


----------



## Johnny b

My apologies.
No excuses. Old habits I need to control.


----------



## Johnny b

Bastiat said:


> Wow, I missed all the fun.
> Johnny b, as one of the two lawyers referenced earlier we did have some fun! I wonder where the other putz lawyer is, sorry I mean moldy lawyer. He is the self styled Weapon of Mass Instruction.


Yeah, I miss the back and forth.
I haven't seen Molder in so long I don't remember.
Someone ( you? ) said he went to Facebook or some social media site.

The political arena has certainly changed since.


----------



## Wino

Johnny b said:


> Yeah, I miss the back and forth.
> I haven't seen Molder in so long I don't remember.
> Someone ( you? ) said he went to Facebook or some social media site.
> 
> The political arena has certainly changed since.


Moldy never quite got over his hero Romney loosing to Obama. On the other hand, I'll probably never get over Cheetolini winning !!

I will say this thread has been quite illuminating and informative.


----------



## Cookiegal

Johnny b said:


> My apologies.
> No excuses. Old habits I need to control.


I understand and thank you.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Topic 4.
> 1997 Global Temperature, again you you googled and bombed the thread with graphs based on current Data.
> Am I going to Cherry Pick, you bet your doozy I am.
> 
> So here is a little test for you.
> What was the Actual Average Global Temperature in the "hottest year ever" 2016, not the anomaly, the Actual temperature in degrees C or degrees F?
> 
> Well I don't think you know that, so I will help you out, if you go to this NASA/NCDC/NOAA Site
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613
> 
> You will see that it is Baseline 13.9°C (57.0°F) + the Anomaly of 0.94°C (1.69°F) = 14.84°C or 58.69°F.
> 
> Got it 58.69F.
> 
> Now go to the same website for 2017 here
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
> 
> Note the ranking chart where 1997 is 57.0F + 1.13F = 58.13 degrees
> 
> Now go to the same website for 1997 here
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
> 
> Wow that must be a mistake surely. It says 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997.
> But it gets worse, now look at 1998
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813
> 
> that looks suspiciously like 1998 was 0.3F warmer than 1997 ie 62.75F.
> 
> Now don't forget to read the bull disclaimer of why it is so much different to now, "*PLEASE NOTE:* The ranks and temperature anomalies in this report represent the values known at the time the report was issued. The actual ranks will change as subsequent years are added to the dataset. The anomalies themselves may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved. Also, in 2009, NCDC switched to ERSST version 3b (from version 2) as a component of its global surface temperature dataset. Because the versions have slightly different methodologies, the calculated temperature anomalies will differ slightly"
> 
> So there you have it from the horses mouth. They changed the Methodology and thus the DATA you so love.
> Obviously those useless idiots back in 1998/1999/2000 didn't know how to work out the Global Temperature correctly.
> Yet you expect us to believe them when they say so and so year was 0.01C or 0.2F warmer than before when their METHODOLOGY can change the past by 4.62 degrees C?
> 
> Please note that none of this post is actually for you, it is for anybody else to see for themselves what happened, as I know you will come up with lots of reasons to excuse it.


When you get back:

Discrediting old data that NOAA charted is of little importance to the argument of what causes the increase in global warming.

The temperature records exist at several reputable sources and they show an increase in global warming since the Industrial Revolution.

Science findings can always be corrected to reflect better accuracy at a later date, but you need to show what and how a process ( other than CO2 as a greenhouse gas ) accomplishes this and what has changed in recent Earth history that brought about that change.

Attempting to prove the issue isn't CO2 concentrations is not the same as proving global warming isn't occurring at a faster rate.

Arguing temperature variations does not illustrate the trend of climate change.
Graphed, it's neither a smooth curve nor a straight line, but the trend is a rise starting after the Industrial Revolution when major increases in CO2 emissions began.

Present your argument, but remember, you need to focus on reasons why the rate of global warming has changed, because it's an issue of causality, and global warming is the effect rather than the cause in the primary discussion.

Wikipedia


----------



## Johnny b

I seldom refer to videos as proofs, but this one I do relate to.
And it must be true, it's from the Living Church of God 

https://www.lcgcanada.org/viewpoint/is-climate-change-a-hoax.php


----------



## Cookiegal

Idontknow.,

Your posts are personal attacks rather that rebuttals and I've seen this on more than one occasion. I also notice that you are dredging up posts that are two years old in other threads and addressing those comments which is pointless if those people are no longer participating in the threads.

I also noticed profanity that went unaddressed so please be careful about that in the future.

Please adjust your posting style to address issues rather than insulting other members.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article over at Ars Technica

* Surprise! Satellites show that thermometers don't lie *

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/surprise-satellites-show-that-thermometers-dont-lie/



> If anything, Aqua satellite data actually shows slightly more warming.
> 
> Starting with the global average, there's a solid match between the satellite and surface data sets at all time scales. The 2003-2017 period is short enough that you can expect small differences in the warming trend of each data set, but they're quite close. And it's the satellite data that shows the greatest warming trend, at 0.24 ± 0.12 °C per decade. The four surface data sets compared ranged from 0.17 to 0.22 °C per decade over that same period.


Aqua satellite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_(satellite)


> Aqua (EOS PM-1) is a NASA scientific research satellite in orbit around the Earth, studying the precipitation, evaporation, and cycling of water. It is the second major component of the Earth Observing System (EOS) preceded by Terra (launched 1999) and followed by Aura (launched 2004).


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Topic 4.
> 1997 Global Temperature, again you you googled and bombed the thread with graphs based on current Data.
> Am I going to Cherry Pick, you bet your doozy I am.
> 
> So here is a little test for you.
> What was the Actual Average Global Temperature in the "hottest year ever" 2016, not the anomaly, the Actual temperature in degrees C or degrees F?
> 
> Well I don't think you know that, so I will help you out, if you go to this NASA/NCDC/NOAA Site
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613
> 
> You will see that it is Baseline 13.9°C (57.0°F) + the Anomaly of 0.94°C (1.69°F) = 14.84°C or 58.69°F.
> 
> Got it 58.69F.
> 
> Now go to the same website for 2017 here
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713
> 
> Note the ranking chart where 1997 is 57.0F + 1.13F = 58.13 degrees
> 
> Now go to the same website for 1997 here
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
> 
> Wow that must be a mistake surely. It says 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997.
> But it gets worse, now look at 1998
> 
> https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199813
> 
> that looks suspiciously like 1998 was 0.3F warmer than 1997 ie 62.75F.
> 
> Now don't forget to read the bull disclaimer of why it is so much different to now, "*PLEASE NOTE:* The ranks and temperature anomalies in this report represent the values known at the time the report was issued. The actual ranks will change as subsequent years are added to the dataset. The anomalies themselves may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved. Also, in 2009, NCDC switched to ERSST version 3b (from version 2) as a component of its global surface temperature dataset. Because the versions have slightly different methodologies, the calculated temperature anomalies will differ slightly"
> 
> So there you have it from the horses mouth. They changed the Methodology and thus the DATA you so love.
> Obviously those useless idiots back in 1998/1999/2000 didn't know how to work out the Global Temperature correctly.
> Yet you expect us to believe them when they say so and so year was 0.01C or 0.2F warmer than before when their METHODOLOGY can change the past by 4.62 degrees C?
> 
> Please note that none of this post is actually for you, it is for anybody else to see for themselves what happened, as I know you will come up with lots of reasons to excuse it.


If you come back, you should address the FACT that NOAA pulled their data results for 1997 but left the original web page.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713


> Please note: the estimate for the baseline global temperature used in this study differed, and was warmer than, the baseline estimate (Jones et al., 1999) used currently. This report has been superseded by subsequent analyses. However, as with all climate monitoring reports, it is left online as it was written at the time.


Science/scientists do endeavor to correct themselves.
Deniers not so much.


----------



## Johnny b

To the argument of man made CO2 as the cause of current increases in global warming, this statistical research came out in 2016.

* On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature *
Published and peer reviewed at Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691



> The spatial explicit analysis reveals that the anthropogenic forcing fingerprint is significantly regionally varying in both hemispheres. On paleoclimate time scales, however, the cause-effect direction is reversed: temperature changes cause subsequent CO2/CH4 changes.





> The confidence interval estimation also follows Liang29,54; it is based on the observation that, for a large ensemble, the maximum likelihood estimate of a parameter approximately obeys a normal distribution around its true value. All given confidence intervals are significant at the 95% level.


As I an neither scientist nor statistician, my understanding is the same as most that read the article.
But rebuttal posted so far has been thin, mostly by deniers with vague comments that seem to rely on past distortions.


----------



## Johnny b

Real issues from CO2 acidification.

Humboldt State University
Ocean Acidification a Challenge for Shellfish in Humboldt Bay



> Though water in the Bay is less acidic than the nearby open coast, the carbonate saturation is still frequently low enough to cause problems for juvenile oysters and larvae," California Sea Grant Extension Specialist Joe Tyburczy. "Based on this data, the Hog Island hatchery has begun buffering the seawater they pump into their facility with sodium carbonate to increase the saturation state and pH, protecting their juvenile and larval oysters and helping them grow."
> 
> Ocean acidification, which is directly related to an increase in human-induced carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, presents major challenges not only for aquaculture, but also for marine ecosystems around the world, says Tyburczy.


https://www.newswise.com/articles/ocean-acidification-a-challenge-for-shellfish-in-humboldt-bay


----------



## Bastiat

It is also one of the many factors causing problems in the Chesapeake Bay and which Trump has cut the fund for the study of and remediation.


----------



## OBP

Before I leave the TSG Forum for good I am going to make several posts, they are for anybody visiting this Thread so that can get an alternative viewpoint.

I will not be answering any questions or responding to any comments, but anyone who really would like to learn more can contact me via TSG PMs, providing I still have an account.

However WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, SCEPTICAL WEBSITES AND SCIENTISTS WILL BE REFERENCED.

It may be catching and turn you in to a dreaded "denier".

I would also like to apologise in advance to the length of some of these posts as I want to treat them with sufficient detail to explain the Sceptical viewpoint. They are not definitive and can't cover every aspect of why some of us Sceptical of CAGW and AGW, that takes books and there quite a few out there to read.

*Point 5*.

The use of the term Climate Change Denier is being used to shut down Scientific Debate.

Anybody who challenged the CAGW Consensus was called a Sceptic, scepticism is the basis of Scientific research and theories.

There have been many people in the past who have challenged the Consensus going all the way back to Copernicus, Kepler & Galileo.

More modern facts overturning the consensus are

Newtonian Physics overturne by Albert Einstein

Plate Tectonics started by Alfred Wegener

Ulcer are caused by stress overturned by Warren & Marshal

There are probably quite a few more, but they make the point that Consensus is NOT settled Science, in fact it is not even Science, it is Groupthink.

Johnnyb made the the following statements in response to other posters comments

"There are no skeptics among deniers" and

"Mostly the deniers are old discredited deniers"

"He is on the Denier List" (except it actually says they may not actually be MMC deniers LOL)

I am not sure what the second quote is, but the first point suggests that deniers are NOT actual sceptics.

The 3rd quote is a ready made list to use in discrediting any kind of Scientific argument, whether it be from Real Science facts from a distinguished Scientist all the way down to lying rogues who just want to cause trouble.

Everybody is lumped together under the "Denier" Banner.

Well there is an interesting article here

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-slur-deniers/2015/05/15/id/644978/

that outlines how the Climate Machine moved from calling anti CAGW people Sceptics to calling them Deniers.

It shows that in 2000 the word Sceptic was only used about 10 times in Climate Change stories, by 2009 Sceptic was still used twice as often as denier to describe an anti CAGW person.

By 2014 Denier was used 3183 times, to the dismay of global-warming skeptics who charge they are being slimed as fringe figures on a par with Holocaust deniers.

Anybody not agreeing with the AGW (by now morphed in to Climate Change) consensus is discredited for Scientific Argument purposes, so now let's take look at some of those people.

Richard Linzen - Physicist Specialising in Atmospherics & Ex IPCC Lead Author

Freeman Dyson - Physicist

Willie Soon - Aerospace Engineer

49 Former NASA scientists and astronauts

Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield - Climatologist (Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report)

Prof Myron Wyn Evan B. Sc., Ph. D., D. S - Physicist (Sigma Pi Sigma of the American Institute of Physics 1995)

Joseph E. Postma - M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy

Dennis Hollars - PH D Astrophysicist

Dr Charles Wax - past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Currently professor of Geography and Climatology at Mississippi State University

U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk "Consensus" in 2008

Professor Michael Beenstock - Professor of Economics

Richard S. J. Tol - Professor of economics (does not deny warming but does deny "catastrophic".

Dr. Edward Wegman - Prof of Statistics

500 Authors of Peer Reviewed Sceptical papers in 2018 and another 35 already by march 2019.

For another list see Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

Judith Curry is an Atmospheric Scientist and also an ex IPCC contributor

Not all of these people are totally sceptical of AGW, some are lukewarmers believing that Man and cO2 make some sort of contribution to Climate Change but do not agree on the extent.

There is also a very informative write up of Climate Science failings here

https://misesuk.org/2017/11/27/an-e...he-lack-of-proof-for-man-made-climate-change/

As you can see there is NO CONCESUS for much more information of why Sceptics are sceptical of Climate Science.

https://www.heartland.org/_template...tists Disagree Second Edition with covers.pdf

Unless of course all those highly educated high flying Scientists don't know what they are talking about as Johnnyb says.


----------



## OBP

*Point 6*

*The demonising of CO2. *

Chawbacon, after correctly defending CO2 finally admits (after being brow beaten by both Valis & johnnyb) that

"My surely basic understanding of Global Warming is that greenhouse gasses (pollutants)"

CO2 is not a Pollutant, Obama had his EPA and tame Judiciary declare it a Pollutant to further his & the Globalists Climate Change Agenda.

CO2 is the building block of all life on Earth, see

http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_CO2.html

CO2 has now been rebranded by the majority of people who talk about it as "Carbon", you know that horrible Dirty Black stuff, not an Invisible life giving Gas.

Man has HELPED nature by adding more CO2 to the 180ppm after the last Ice Age and stave off Flora CO2 starvation and thus the extinction of life which starts at about 150ppm.

CO2 is added to Greenhouses at approximately 1000ppm or more to promote growth, (note the comment on Higher Temperatures) see

http://www.jasons-indoor-guide-to-o...ning.com/plant-growth-and-carbon-dioxide.html

CO2 has been as high as 11,000ppm in the past when Flora was large and luxurious, since it has been above 380ppm the world has started "Greening" again see

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

and

CO2 is described as a Greenhouse Gas, ie it absorbs and re-emits Long Wave Infra-red Radiation (LWIR) which results in a warming Planet, it is the only Gas of any quantity in the Atmosphere that does so. But that Quantity only averages out at about 0.04% of the Atmosphere in comparison to Nitrogen at 78% Oxygen at 21% and H2O at 4%.

H2O is not actually a gas, but it also absorbs and re-emits Radiation and is at a much higher concentration of 4% of the Atmosphere compared to CO2

So CO2 is the only gas in the upper Atmosphere that can re-emit LWIR, in other words it Cools the Atmosphere, the more CO2 the faster it cools the atmosphere and the Earth. To see a presentation of this by NASA see

https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa/

and





 starting at about 15 minutes in.

And

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3

The troposphere extends to an average height of about 18K in the tropics. At all heights below about 10k the Actions of CO2 are swamped by the presence of H2O, but H2O gets less & less above 10K. At the top of the troposphere where CO2 is most active around the 15micron band of LWIR the temperature is approximately -112 degrees F and the Atmospheric Density is much less than at the surface so there are far fewer CO2 molecules.

A CO2 Molecule at that height when struck by and LWIR Photon will absorb the photon and become "Excited" and contain more energy and thus warms relative to the other gases in that region, this would normally lead to the re-emission of a photon, however the normal time taken to do so is approximately 10μs, but the time for a collision with another gas molecule of Nitrogen or Oxygen is only 0.27ns approximately 370,000 times faster. If a collision does happen with another molecule the CO2 molecule will lose its energy to that other molecule.

The converse is also true ie a Nitrogen or Oxygen Molecule in a collision could impart enough energy to cause the emission of a photon from the CO2 Molecule.

So here we have a conundrum, CO2 which re-emits LWIR to space cooling the Atmosphere is called a "Greenhouse gas" whereas Nitrogen and Oxygen in far higher quantities actually retain any heat they are given. Shouldn't they then be called the Greenhouse gases?

H2O in the atmosphere totally controls the local climate, this is easily proved by comparing the loss of Temperature during the night, the Tropics have a very stable temperature with very little diurnal swing, Dry Deserts on the other hand can be Hotter than tropics during the day (all record highs are from desert areas) but can drop below Zero (0 degrees C) at night. see

http://www.jasons-indoor-guide-to-o...ning.com/plant-growth-and-carbon-dioxide.html

The moon which is virtually atmosphere less with therefore zero H2O has even Larger Swings of 300C.

But the argument put forward by Climate Scientists is that CO2 "Drives" Climate change, it is a "Forcing" whereas H2O follows the Climate. However scientifically accepted reconstructions of past CO2 levels versus Temperature have all shown that CO2 Peaks after the temperature and falls after the Temperature has peaked, thus it follows the temperature changes. ( I suspect that will be "adjusted away" quite soon, there has already been one attempt to do so)

see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

This is also consistent with Ocean Out gassing during the 1990s caused by increasing Ocean Temperatures. see

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/biblio/qua...ke-changes-atmospheric-o2-and-co2-composition

However the Climate Scientists say that the forcing comes from increased Down welling LWIR from increased CO2, known as "Back Radiation" which is also warming the surface not just the local gas molecules. see the Energy Balance Diagram at the start of this article

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-simplest-explanation-of-global-warming-ever-2b365aff0c2f

This is probably the most contentious part of their Science, that back radiation supplies the same amount of energy as the sun i e 340Watts per Square Metre, but all of it goes to the Surface whereas only 163W/M2 Solar energy makes it.

First of all let's consider those Watts, it would appear that all Watts are not made equal.

The measly 163Watts from the sun can heat the Oceans to tens of metres, Heat water in Heat Solar Panels, Create Electricity in Solar Panels, Cook Food in Solar Collectors and heat the atmosphere and us to a pleasant 70-80F.

So what about those massive 340Watts of DLWIR, well they can affect the top 1mm of the Oceans which increases surface evaporation. And they can also, well actually there is not much else. If you use that cooking solar collector at night when CO2 Watts should reign supreme it acts as a fridge and can Actually Freeze Water.

What about those Clouds making it warmer at night I here you ask, well they really do impede the LWIR leaving the surface and can reflect the LWIR as well.

CO2 DLWIR however cannot do any Work because where it comes from is too cold. Ask a Climate Activist why we do not have any Machines that can utilise those CO2 Watts and they will hum and Ha for a while and then admit that the Machine would have to be colder than the top of the Troposphere.

They then say But DWLIR from CO2 are Photons and Photons must add energy to whatever they are absorbed by. Except Thermodynamic laws State Heat from a cold object cannot warm a hotter object. There have been arguments on this point raging on the Internet for many years.

I actually went to the trouble of conducting simple experiments to try and prove that it happens.

Place a cold object next to a warmer object and the warmer Cools Faster and the colder object warms, place two objects of the same temperature close together and it is supposed to slow the cooling process, not even measurable to 0.1 Degree C when I tried it. But they say it works for CO2 because it is warmer than Space. So an object hotter than Ambient placed next to an even hotter object should warm the even hotter one , nope didn't happen. Well at least it should slow down the cooling, nope didn't happen. At least all that didn't happen when a fan was introduced to agitate the AIR between them. Without which the Air between them got hotter and that did slow the Cooling.

Before leaving the Subject of Top of Troposphere CO2 LWIR Photons I would like to mention some of the physics and Mechanics involved, the mechanics are never mentioned by Climate Scientists for very good reason.

I mentioned the time taken for a CO2 Molecule to emit a Photon but did not discuss what happens to them.

Well less than a half of them head back towards the surface, they travel a very short distance before impacting another Molecule which can change their direction or absorb them, this is known as the Mean Free Path Length, for CO2 it is calculated to be about 25 -33 Metres, yes metres.

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html

If the mean free path length is short how does a photon travel over 10km through an ever denser Atmosphere without being absorbed by another CO2 molecule or the even more numerous H2O molecules, or have its direction of travel changed.

Each time the Photon is absorbed less than of half of the photons emitted will continue to travel downwards, so each absorption will half the number travelling towards the Surface. So the question is how many top of the troposphere re-emitted photons can actually reach the surface? I have no idea but it cannot be many.

If they do reach the surface they cannot warm the Oceans which cover 70% of the surface, so 70% of them are wasted.

There is also the issue of how much Energy they actually carry, which is temperature and Vibration dependent see

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/why-the-sun-controls-the-climate-and-co2-is-meaningless/ dependent,

You might like to read

http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/evidence.html

Can H2O be a Climate Change Driver?

Note the comment up post " The measly 163Watts from the sun can heat the Oceans to tens of metres", I posted a graph at post #181 which johnnyb rubbished because of its source even though it used Scientific data provided by Climate Establishments.

What that Graph shows is that in the tropics where Solar Insolation is at its highest, Cloud cover Decreased between 1983 and 2000 and then stayed low until 2009.

In lock Step the Global Surface Temperature Increased from 1983 until the 1997 El Nino and then stayed at a higher level until 2011 when the data ends. I have tried getting later data from the sources but NASA seems to have problems with its links, especially to the Programming Tools required to decipher the actual data which is in a NON Standard format, ie not the usual CSV files like temperature data is.

There is also analysis here

https://web.archive.org/web/20120114120504/http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/

And analysis on that analysis at

https://web.archive.org/web/2012011...t/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html

What that Data shows is that Atmospheric H2O in the Form of Cloud Cover can Drive Climate Change, either by having more Cloud and reducing the Solar Insolation reaching the surface or having less Cloud causing more Insolation to reach the surface.

This has the greatest effect over Oceans which store the energy, where the Land loses it virtually overnight, which CO2 cannot prevent.

However the Changes in atmospheric H2O are not clearly understood, although Svenmark does have a theory on Cosmic Radiation controlled by the Solar Winds which has been partially proven by CERN scientific experiments.

Note the period in the first study is the period that Climate Scientists try to claim the rise in temperature was caused by CO2.

But the Climate Science actually admits that CO2 is not a "big problem on its own", it requires *Positive Feedbacks *for it to become truly problematic*. *But there is no positive proof of those feedbacks. see

https://archive.org/details/TheObservedFailuresOfAllIpccPositive-feedbackClimateModelsAndTheir

According to the warmists CO2 is a truly magic molecule and has been blamed for a massive list of things that have and could go wrong see

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.htm

Of course the demonising of CO2 was required to demonise Fossil Fuels, which was the main aim.

The UK had the pleasure of hosting Greta Thunberg, the 16 activist for the Climate Industry at our Parliament. She was here to Lecture our Members of Parliament (MPs) on what we needed to do for Future Generations. This young lady is a manufactured product of her parents and an Activist group, see
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/201...uth-capitalism-is-in-danger-of-falling-apart/
She is a pawn that has even been nominated for a Nobel prize.
She actually had the temerity to say that the UK owed the world and these future generations more than any other country because we started the Industrial Revolution.
Now just consider what she is saying, the Industrial Revolution and Machinery, Coal & Oil in particular have brought the masses of the world the following Benefits :-
Removing a lot of the Drudge of Manual Labour
Much Shorter Working Week
Cleaner Water
Cheap Energy, Electricity, Gas etc
Better Medicines
Better Health Care
Better, Faster and Longer Travel = better mobility
Better Lighting, Heating & Cooling
Much More & Better Food (but not all of it)
Heavy Industry providing Concrete, Iron, Steel & Aluminium
Electronics
Better Communication
I am sure you can think of other things, and for this we should feel guilty and "pay" restitution.
What She and those backing her propose is to deprive or delay all of those benefits to the emerging 3rd world Countries, while at the same time squandering Trillions of Dollars on the wrong kind of Energy which is not only more expensive, shorter living but also ineffective.


----------



## OBP

*Point 7.*

*Ice etc.*

There are many so called indicators of Global Warming, none more evocative than the loss of Arctic See Ice and the Poor Polar Bears, my brainwashed grand nephew actually believed that all the Polar Bears were going to die because all the Ice was going to disappear, so they would either die of starvation or drown, sob sob

We had numerous Scientists talking about Ice Death Spirals and predicting when the Ice would all be gone and Polar Bears were put on the endangered species list, none of it came true, Polar Bears have never done so well with a population in excess of 25,000. In fact they are now more likely to die of starvation due to less food per Bear.

As for the Ice yes it did decline from 1979 until 2006, which is part of an approximately 60 year cycle. see

https://www.scotsman.com/future-sco...lting-ice-cap-may-be-a-natural-cycle-1-738894, note his prediction and the date of the article.

There were 2 lower periods than 2006 in 2007 and 2012, however they were NOT due to Higher Arctic temperatures as much as Wind & Currents in 2007 and a major storm in 2012.

see

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/

*"Conditions in context*
The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year's conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August." There was also another major Arctic storm in 2016.

However ignoring those 2 special cases it has been 12 years since the 2006 low and the downward trend has not continued, sea ice extents are at the same level now.

Of course what they do not mention is the ever more Ice Breakers, Cruise Ships and now a Strengthened Cargo carrier as well crisscrossing the Arctic weakening the Ice. see

https://www.cruisemapper.com/cruise-lines/Icebreakers-112?page=1

In 1979 that was unheard of and if wind and currents can move the Ice around and reduce it imagine how much easier it would be when it has been broken into smaller pieces by the Ice Breakers and Cruise Ships.

There are a few other inconsistencies in the way that NASA present their data, the Satellite data actually started before 1979 and analysis of the data from 1972 shown in the 1990 IPCC report shows that in 1972 it was way below the 1990 level. see

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...ellite-monitoring-of-arctic-sea-ice-pre-1979/

Note the wording in ARG1 "It must be recognised though that Sea Ice is *strongly influenced* by Surface Winds and Ocean Currents"

In fact if we look at the history of ships traversing the North West passage we can see that the Ice has been as low if not lower than it is currently.

There was lot's of news about the first Cargo ship making an unassisted Voyage in 2014. However despite the fanfare and it being shown as another proof of the state of the Arctic ice this was no "cargo" ship. The MV Nunavik is an Ice Breaking Cargo ship specifically designed to be able to Break through 5Ft, yep 5ft of Ice. see

https://www.livescience.com/48105-cargo-ship-solos-northwest-passage.html

Now compare that to the historical list of Ships which have done the same

http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/NWP_Fulltransits.php

Note the 1940-1944 voyages of the

St. Roch (R.C.M.P.)

see http://www.nauticapedia.ca/dbase/Qu.... Roch (R.C.M.P.)&id=14344&Page=1&input=st. r

this was an 80 ton, 90ft long wooden ship built in 1928 with a measly 150hp engine which navigated the North West Passage in 1940 from West to East without the help of Ice Breakers, Sat Navigation or Satellite Ice Maps. Not only did it traverse the passage it went on to Circumnavigate North America and then to traverse the North West Passage again from East to West, the first ship ever to do so in both directions.

Climate Scientists no longer use historic anecdotal evidence as if it does not count.

Antarctic Ice is another so called indicator of CAGW, however it does not fit the picture at all, first of the sea Ice increased dramatically reaching Record levels while the Arctic was losing ice. see

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...-sea-ice-extent-breaks-streak-of-record-highs

But it is all totally academic, why have Scientists and the gullible public become so *divorced from reality*, ask any Northern Hemisphere Fish or Pond Keeper what surface Ice does and they will tell you that it *INSULATES THE WATER AND KEEPS IT *WARMER and it works even better if there is a slight Air Gap between the Water and the ice. Remove the Ice and the *heat in the water* immediately starts to escape to the *colder Air* and out to Space faster. How do they think *Igloos* work?

This is BASIC THERMODYNAMICS.

*The other point to mention is that Melting Sea Ice does not add anything to Sea level rise.*

Also Continental Ice is a subject of great debate and is a classic case of the "Settled Science" and consensus being nothing of the kind. Here is an example.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-believe-in-antarctica-rsquo-s-great-ice-debate/

Settled Science my Foot, NASA Scientists can't even agree among themselves.

Next let's consider those "disappearing" Glaciers which is another so called indicator, well they are not disappearing, in fact many of them are growing, which is not a good sign for the future because warmer is much, much better than colder.

https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

Of course you will not see this trumpeted in the MSM because it goes against "the message".

Connected to this of course are Snow levels, something that was disappearing and would never be seen by kids in the future. Well they hasn't worked out very well for the Climate Change Activists either.

Northern Hemisphere snow although decreasing in the spring, it has been increasing in the Autumn and Winter. See

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4

The excuse for this made by the warmists is that "Warmer Air holds more Moisture leading to greater precipitation". Of course this is a contradiction to what was said before when snow was decreasing i e Snow would disappear.

The only thing wrong with this is that to get Snow it needs to be near or below zero, i e COLD.

And boy has it been cold with cold records being broken all over the northern hemisphere over the last 4 years, these records are not broken by 0.1 degrees C like Warm records, oh no they have been broken by as much as 12 degrees C. But of course it is "only weather" they will say.

For evidence of those records scroll back through the history of

https://www.iceagenow.info/

You will very rarely see anything in the Global Press about this documented cold, frost, snow, ice, loss of livestock and loss of crops.

ps while writing another Point post what should pop up but another vital statistic that I forgot about snow, that is how early Autumn (Fall to you US citizens) Snow falls have been starting.

Well another Record has been broken, see

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/04/earliest-recorded-snow-event-in-western-australian-history/

Note yet another Sceptical Forum re-reporting Local News.


----------



## OBP

*Point 8.*

*Data Adjustments and Instruments.*

Which are very many and why I asked johnny be if he actualyl used the NASA?NCDC/NOAA webbsites, to which he responded that he read some information. Which is not what I meant at all, I meant had he looked at the ACTUAL DATA.

In post 143 johnnyb stated with great hubris that "I addressed the Goddard Labs ( NASA to you ) data and controversies involving placement of weather recording equipment, the change in equipment and data format, the expulsion of erratic data from poor placement."

Which is very odd because those controversies have continued and in fact increased to this day.

First of all I will deal with the legitimate & semi legitimate Adjustment to the Surface Temperature data which includes Quality Control, Time of Observation (TOBS), Homogenisation, infilling, Kriging and Urban Heat Island Affect (UHI).

There is an Excellent Description by _Zeke Hausfather _of how and why the Adjustments are made here. see

https://www.skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

He also posts on many sceptical forums with similar data.

Most of the adjustments originate from the Menne et all paper here

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/menne-etal2009.pdf

Generally *Quality Adjustments* are quite good, however there are many instances of ridiculous values being left in the data, tropical Islands with temperatures below zero and Cool places with temperatures of 80C, almost twice the world record.

The TOBS adjustments seem reasonable at first glance until you realise that the ACTUAL TOB for each station is not taken into consideration and the adjustments are made to all Weather Stations regardless of their TOB. TOB Adjustments practically always Cool the past thus increasing the Warming Trend since around 1900.

*Pairwise adjustments* are not so clever, if a Weather station show a marked difference to "Local", ie Zeke quotes "over a few Kms", then they use the average of those local stations to adjust the values for the rogue station. In actual fact it is not just "a few kilometres", it can be 100kms or in the case of GISS 1200km.

Now just think about that for a moment anyone familiar with Foehn winds etc see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foehn_wind

will know that they can bring about a sudden increase in temperature (as Wiki says as much as 14C), now that temperature increase actually happened, it was experienced by human beings.

This actual, real completely natural temperature could be removed and replaced with a value up to 14C colder from a "local" non foehn area.

Similarly it could be a cold Squall, Cloud Cover, Mist, Fog etc all cooling by anything up to 10C the actual Station but not the "local" stations.

Does this seem reasonable?

Next we *have Infilling*, this is one area that I have thoroughly checked out myself. Now Zeke says "Finally we come to infilling, which has garnered quite a bit of attention of late due to some rather outlandish claims of its impact. Infilling occurs in the USHCN network in two different cases: when the raw data is not available for a station, and when the PHA flags the raw data as too uncertain to homogenize"

This is total Garbage, I have personally seen 40 Years of "infilling" ie FALSE Data added where NO data previously existed. The apparent excuse given is that to be included in the NCDC calculations they have to have consistent data going back to at least 1900.

I have also gone back to the original COOP image of the Paperwork here

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/...oreign=false&stationID=410120&_target3=Next+>

for individual daily readings, (which is extremely labour intensive), that were perfectly correct and had been replaced with different Estimated data.

This cannot be condoned in any way shape or form and is totally outside the original intentions of infilling the data where a few records are missing or wrong. And Zeke's contention that "Apart from a slight adjustment prior to 1915, infilling has no effect on CONUS-wide trends. These results are identical to those found in Menne et al 2009. This is expected, because the way NCDC does infilling is to add the long-term climatology of the station that is missing (or not used) to the average spatially weighted anomaly of nearby stations."

Is not true when decades of Data have been introduced where none exist or to replace perfectly good data.

Then we have *Kriging (Gridding)* which is a group of statistical techniques to interpolate the value of a random field. This is used to generate the Grid Values shown when you view those coloured globes showing the temperatures and to calculate the Global Temperature. This is a very controversial subject, especially where GISS is concerned

I am not sure what NCDC use for their cell size but GISS apparently use a Radius of 1200km to calculate the temperature where there is sparse coverage by weather stations.

Just think about how ridiculous that is, that is like projecting the temperatures in the UK from Lands End to John O'groats, where you can have a 10 degree C difference in temperature and completely different variability. One of the rules of Kriging is data should be Spatially Dependent and temperature data especially in the UK is Not as the North is controlled predominantly by the North Atlantic plus the Jet Stream and the South is controlled by European weather, the East by the Channel and all the way to the Russian Steps while West by the Southern Atlantic and Jet Stream.

There is also an issue with Ocean Merging where Land & Sea Surface temperatures are merged, which when you think about it is patently absurd. The Volumetric Heat Capacity of Water is 4.1813 J/(g*K) whereas for Air it is only 1.0035 J/(g*K). The air over the land surface will suffer massive swings in relation to the water.

*Urban Heat Island Affect (UHI)* is not compensated for by NCDC, but is by GISS, they use Satellites to Estimate whether an area is Rural, Sub-Urban or Urban using Night time measurement of lights.

Quote "Stations identified as urban, using values
obtained from satellite measurements of nighttime brightness, have their trend adjusted to

match the trend of a composite record made from nearby rural stations. At least 2/3 of the

adjusted period must have 3 rural stations contributing to the composite record. Periods and

stations that do not have sufficient support from rural stations are dropped. The composite

rural record is made from rural stations within 500 km, or 1000 km if necessary to meet the

above requirement.

"

When this data is manually checked it is full of errors including GPS locations as well as the designation.

However the major problem is the same as pairwise adjustments and the amount of the correction applied. Anybody who watches a weather forecast sees that large cities can have as much as 10F difference to surrounding areas. Anybody with a Car that has external temperature measurement can watch the temperature change as the move from countryside to Sub Urban and then in to the Urban City. There is also this from 1989, read the conclusion.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1989)070<0265:UBIAAS>2.0.CO;2

So what does this all mean as far as temperature Trends are concerned and the Historic record for Global Temperatures, well if we take the Official Menne example and assume that it is religiously adhered to, (records strongly suggest that it is not), the adjustments applied to the data from 1897 to present will have added 0.504C to the Minimum Temperatures and 0.396C to the Maximum. Pretty easy to Break old temperatures when you an extra 0.4C to the current values compared to the historic ones?

The more modern interpretation by Zeke however shows 0.22C for Minimum and 0.77C for Maximum Temperatures, which differs considerably from Menne et al. I don't know why there is a difference, but if Zeke reflects current values then it is even easier to break old records when you add 0.77C to current values.

We must also add to these Adjustments the changes to the data at each new version of NCDC, GISS and HADCRUT, which are also in the direction of cooling the past to increase the Warming Trend.

*So to sum up this section on Temperature Adjustments if we take the last Graph that johnnyb posted in post #221, which by the way we have no idea where it came from as Wiki doesn't make graphs, of the 1.4C increase since 1910 shown 0.77C, that is 55% of it comes from Authorised Adjustments.*

That deals with the supposedly (self) Authorised adjustments, now we need to move on to some and it is only some of the unauthorised ones.

The most blatant and documented are those carried out by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) .

Like NCDC & GISS the Aussie BOM have also produced many versions of their data and with each version the Data is changed, the changes occur due to changing out Stations and Changing station data. However the most serious cases involve actually manipulating the Instrument outpust for the later Electronic Thermometers. The first involves programming the Instruments to Not register Temperatures below -10 degrees C. Thus this curtailment of RAW DATA biases the Trend towards warming.

The second is not using World Meteorology Organisation (WMO) guidelines for the actual data gathering. The Instruments are set to gather and Store 1 Second data, to avoid recording Temperature spikes the WMO guideline is to average the reading over a 1 minute period, which still seems short compared to a Mercury Thermometer to which they will be compared. see

https://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Marohasy-to-Finkel-20180504.pdf

These have been reported to not only to the BOM, but also to the Australian Government.

The effect of this change is to register more Records as well as increase the Trend, very naughty indeed.

On top of these BOM have been caught making many data changes in the past including major ones to the new ACORN2 dataset that replaces ACORN1 see

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/au...-oodnadatta-but-carnarvon-51-degrees-in-1953/

and

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/hi...n2-raises-australias-warming-rate-by-over-20/

and

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/ad...ate-in-50-years-darwin-wont-even-be-tropical/

That is enough of Australia, how about NCDC and GISS GHCN Arctic data, back in 2012 they were caught changing Icelandic Temperature data, which had already been Adjusted by the Icelandic BOM.

Paul Homewood carried out studies on Arctic Temperature data and later in South America and found lot's of naughtiness going on.

See

Confirmed in 2012 here

https://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01...ctic-climate-history-revision/comment-page-1/

here

https://icelandweather.blog.is/blog/icelandweather/entry/1230185/

and in 2015 here

http://euanmearns.com/re-writing-the-climate-history-of-iceland/

and here

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/the-official-iceland-temperature-series/

and here

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/how-to-access-iceland-temperature-data/

He and others then caught them doing the same again in 2017

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...a-still-falsifying-icelandic-climate-history/

The South American post can be found here

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/

NCDC & GISS are not the only ones found to have poor Quality control of their data see this about the UKs HADCRUT here

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/fi...tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

I think by now you may have got the impression that us Sceptics do not have much faith in the Data that Trillions of Dollars are expected to be spent on trying to negate.

We also have to mention the latest adjustments to the Sea Surface data to try and remove evidence off the "Pause in Global warming", an analysis of what was done is carried out here.

The adjustments to Satellite Temperatures for the same reason here

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...rming-satellite-data-gets-suspicious-makeover

The adjustments to the Satellite data for Sea Levels here

https://alethonews.com/2013/10/31/s...djusted-upward-by-34-over-past-9-years-alone/

and here

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/17/tales-of-the-adjustocene-satellite-sea-level-edition/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03...eration-from-a-biased-water-vapor-correction/


----------



## OBP

*Point 9.*

*The state of the Science.*

The "Greenhouse Gas" Global Warming theory has been around since the days of Arrhenius, but it is not without its challengers.

Sceptics do not challenge the concept of Climate Change, how could they, climate has changed since the world had an atmosphere. They also do not challenge that the Earth has warmed since the last Ice Age and again since the Little Ice Age (LIA), Humans would be in terrible trouble if it hadn't, the Ice Age brought mile high Glaciers and the LIA was a time of terrible weather and terrible Famine.

According to current Climate Science CO2 has been stable for 100s of thousands of years and only increased lately due to Man, so how did the LIA happen, why then did it get colder if CO2 drives the Climate? Also why then did it get warmer if CO2 stayed the same?

Well interestingly enough NASA has not always said that CO2 "is the climate knob" and drives the climate, here is an old posting that has been removed or rewritten. see

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/na...les-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/

compare that to the current version (note even that says the sun is main driver)

https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

That is the crux of the Sceptic position, if CO2 contributes to warming, how much is it?

This explains a lot about why we are sceptical

https://misesuk.org/2017/11/27/an-e...he-lack-of-proof-for-man-made-climate-change/

The current NASA science starts with HOW the Sun warms the Earth and HOW MUCH it warms it and this is the 1st bone of contention between Warmists and Sceptics.

a. Scientists decided to make the calculation they would need to Average the Solar radiation at the top of the Atmosphere known as Total Solar Insolation (TSI) striking the surface, but the problem with this is that it suggests a steady state situation (Equilibrium) which is patently rubbish. The TSI entering the Atmosphere is almost at Equilibrium, but the way that it enters the Atmosphere and more importantly hits the surface is anything but. It starts off very low at dawn in the morning builds through the day to reach its maximum and then declines until dusk. So it variably warms during the day and then switches off altogether, during the night there is NO SOLAR INPUT for half of the World, only Cooling. And while the world was being warmed on one side during the day the other side was cooling. Where is the Equilibrium required for Radiation Budget calculations?

But obviously "Good enough for Government Work" as they say.

b. This is the most hilarious part of all, to make the calculation easier they assume the Spherical Earth to be, wait for it, a "*Flat Disc*". so here are the original "*Flat Earth Conspirators*" that Valis & johnnyb so denigrate and ridicule.

The problem with this of course is that it totally ignores the changes in the angle of incidence that the Earth strikes the Surface with when it is curved. Science of Doom has an excellent example of why they us this "Fudge" rather than use the actual calculations for a curved surface here.

https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/06/the-earths-energy-budget-part-one/

Again obviously "Good enough for Government Work".

However Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller in their contrarian paper do use Spherical calculations.

c. They make assumptions about Cloud cover which they assume is basically constant, whereas the graph I posted in post #181 on page 13 shows that it definitely is not.

They also assume the amount of energy lost due to the Albedo of Sea Ice, however they compare Ice Albedo 0.6 to 0.7 with the average Open Ocean Albedo of 0.06 and even worse Snow on Ice can be as much as 0.9, well what's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that is first of all is that surface Ice *INSULATES THE WATER AND KEEPS IT WARMER. *Remove it and the *heat in the water* immediately starts to escape to the *colder Air* and out to Space faster as already mentioned in the Ice Post. Second in the Arctic Winter when the Sea Ice Albedo with or without Snow is at its *highest* there is *NO SUNLIGHT* to reflect. and in the Summer when there is Sunshine the Angle of incidence of the Sunlight in the Arctic on the open water causes almost as much reflection as Ice would. see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Sun_angle_on_climate

Again obviously "Good enough for Government Work".

d. Having carried out these calculations the "expected" temperature does not match the actual measured Temperature, so the Climate Scientists that the only thing that provides the difference is "Global Warming by Green House Gases".

The latest work by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller suggests that the main alternate theory that the Difference is caused Gravity induced Warming, they are not the first to suggest it but have produced a method of calculating the Surface Temperatures of the other planets in the solar system with an atmosphere and it matches the measured surface temperatures without any input from CO2. see

https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/

The next Science problem to discuss is the Calculation of Temperatures and especially the Global Temperature. Historic Thermometers used for measuring day/night temperatures were mostly Mercury Min/Max thermometers. They provide 3 readings, obviously the current temperature, the maximum temperature and the Minimum temperature achieved since they last reset. Later Electronic Thermometers constantly measure and record the temperature, they also react much faster to react to change than Mercury ones.

Climate Scientists manipulate the Max and the Min data to provide data for graph plotting, they then use the (max+min/2) to calculate the Average Daily temperature. This product of the calculation Could be the Mean for the day but may be completely wrong. Here is a discussion on a paper for this subject

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08...n-analysis-of-the-uscrn-temperature-stations/

The other problem with using just Taverage is that you lose a lot of valuable information

This strongly suggests that both TMinimum and TMaximum should be plotted on the same graph.

Why do I say this, well NASA and other climate Scientists do not make it clear that the TAverage Land Surface Global Temperature warming trend has the most contribution from changes to the Tminimum values. i e the Earth is not getting much warmer, it is getting *"less cold"*

However they do not use Actual Temperatures in their subsequent calculations they use Anomalies from a Baseline, which has changed over the years. But in 1998 they made a serious mistake printing not just the anomaly, but the Actual Temperature as well.

*Old 1901/2000 Baseline*

From the NASA link I gave in post #205

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713

they provide both the Actual Temperature and the Anomaly so the baseline can be calculated, Actual Temperature 62.45F or 16.92C minus the anomaly of 0.42C = 16.50C or 61.70F

*New & Current 1951/1980 Baseline*

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/decadaltemp.php

57.0F or 13.90C (or even 14.0C as NASA don't seem too sure, when the conversion is carried 13.90 and 14.0C equate to 57.2F, so go figure)

I pointed out in post #205 that the 1997 Report

NOAA explained that the Values in that Report were not "Current", (for that read as adjusted to how they are now) and that "_The anomalies themselves may change slightly as missing or erroneous data is resolved. Also, in 2009, NCDC switched to ERSST version 3b (from version 2) as a component of its global surface temperature dataset. Because the versions have slightly different methodologies, the calculated temperature anomalies will differ slightly_".

Note " may change slightly " & "will differ slightly*", SLIGHTLY.*

As johnnyb challenged my interpretation of the data let's calculate the Anomaly for 1997 based on the 1951/1980 baseline instead of the old 20th century one.

First of all we have to take the new lower value baseline from the old one to obtain the difference, so 16.5C - 14.0C = 2.5C and now add back on the 1997 Anomaly of 0.42C which equals 2.92C.

Now remember from post#205 that 1998 was 0.3F, or 0.2C warmer than 1997, that would make the 1998 anomaly 2.94C. We have to use 1998 because 1997 is not even mentioned in the top ten warmest years.

Let's now compare that to the Current Anomaly using the 1951/1980 baseline as published in the 2017 Report which is the last report mentioning 1998.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201713

As you can see from the Chart for top ten hottest years 1998 is 9th with an anomaly of 0.63C. Note the 1998 value had already been revised downwards to 0.58 by the 2008 Report using the same technique, see the same Note on this report

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/200813

Does a Change from an anomaly of *2.94C* in 1998 down to an anomaly of *0.63C* actually look like a "*SLIGHT*" difference?

So how did the 2 *New World Record* get splashed all around the world without NASA later admitting that it was totally in ERROR by more than 2 degrees C? see

http://edition.cnn.com/WEATHER/9801/08/warm.1997/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/01/980113062713.htm

https://archive.is/Fcx3y

http://fishingnj.org/artnoaawarm.htm

Could those Scientists, some of whom are still there or were still there in 2009 when Analysis methods were introduced really have been that bad at science? Was it deliberate to get headlines?

Why weren't they sacked? Is it acceptable to Rewrite (or as they euphemistically put it "Reconstruct") History like that?

Note that the above Analysis uses the Land plus Sea Surface temperatures, which are 2 totally different things, Land is measured 6ft above the Surface and the Sea is measured in the top metre of the Sea. How can you merge these two datasets, they are not measuring the same thing and the Thermal Inertia of water is so much higher than Air that is a nonsense. It reminds one of the M Mann Hockey stick where you combine Bristle Cone Data and Thermometer data, which was totally debunked by Steve McIntyre, as was the later supporting Marcott paper

https://cbdakota.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-marcott-reconstruction-debunked/

In Point 6 I mentioned cloud cover directly affecting Climate, however there is another area of the "science" that is ignored. As johnnyb pointed out a couple of times is that Atmospheric H20 forms Clouds and then it Rains. Well in the world that I live in where the Rain comes from is much colder than the surface and he forgot to mention that it also falls as Sleet, Hail and Hail Stones as well as Snow.

Also in the world I live in when it rains anywhere other than the Tropics the Rain and the rest of the precipitation are COLD, they immediately cools both the air and land, especially on a hot summers day. How do their Climate Change Computer programs handle that along with the myriad of other continuously changing variables. The answer is Poorly, of all the 70+ Climate Change GCMs only one comes close to reproducing reality and that happens to be the Russian one.

Even back in 2013 it was recognised how poorly the science was doing

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...inds-widely-overestimated-global-warming.html

What about the latest changes in the Sun, the Climate Scientist insist that there is not enough variation in TSI to seriously affect our Climate. While it is true that there is little variation in the amount of TSI there is a lot of change in the makeup of the Radiation, the amount of the high power Ultra Violet light can vary as much as 10%, the Solar Wind Varies as well along with Cosmic Radiation controlled by it. There is also the amount of electrical energy in the upper Atmosphere (Aurora Borealis) changes that are also taking place.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000995

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/HadleyCentre.pdf

You won't find that built in to any CO2 calculations.

In fact the changes have already started, the Atmospheric Global Temperature has dropped 0.4C since the El Nino high in 2016 way below the 1997 El Nino level as well.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-global-temperature-update-for-march-2019-0-34-deg-c/

NASA expect more cooling

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019...ysteria-nasa-scientists-expect-global-cooling

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...mate-cooling-trend-thanks-to-low-sun-activity

The Earth's Atmosphere has already shrunk

https://www.perspectaweather.com/bl...-to-increase-as-deep-solar-minimum-approaches

Winters are now coming earlier

https://www.alfainvestors.com/news/...eko-hokkaido-welcomes-august-snow-sneak-peek/

https://www.newsweek.com/winter-coming-early-2017-680932

https://metro.co.uk/2016/10/19/uk-gets-first-snow-in-early-sign-that-winter-is-coming-6200968/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...arly-year-seven-states-seeing-white-week.html

What about all that "Increasing Extreme weather" we keep hearing about?

I have already discussed Ice & Snow in Point 7.

*US Tornadoes*

Annual Quantities of powerful Tornadoes F3 to F5.

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

Wow look at that reduction from the high of 137 in 1974 down to under 30 for 2012 to 2014.

Why does the data only start in 1954 and end in 2104 what are they trying hide?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks

Wow again, look at all those F4 & F5 tornadoes before 1954.

How about the most dangerous Tornados, surely with 2015/16/17 being the hottest years ever there must have been plenty of the most dangerous Tornados

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-climatology/deadliest

Well will you look at that REAL DATA, only 1 Tornado ranked number 7 in 2011 of the very worst Tornadoes occurred after 1953 when CO2 was much lower and the very worst one was way back in 1925 when CO2 was even lower.

*Us Hurricane Landfalls*

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/16/study-global-warming-does-not-cause-hurricanes/

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0184.1

*Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)*

Is the Cyclone Activity increasing

https://www.policlimate.com/tropical/

Nope.

*Wild Fires*

*US Wild fires*

President Trump was castigated in the Press for daring to suggest that the recent California fires were not caused by AGW, but by Incorrect Forestry & Woodland Procedure leaving too much FIRE FEED STOCK, he was supported by many Forestry Professionals and he was right. California have changes the Forestry Management rules.

https://wildfiretoday.com/2019/04/1...es-changes-to-fire-management-and-prevention/

Wild Fire Burn Areas have been reducing since the 3 Million Acre fire in 1825 and the 2.5 Million Acres in 1871 and numbers killed come nowhere near the Peshtigo fire also of 1871 which killed between 1200 and 2500. see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wildfires

*Australian Wildfires*

In Australia the biggest fire was also in the 1800s when the Victoria Fire destroyed 5 Million Hectares and killed a million sheep and thousands of Cattle.

http://romseyaustralia.com/fireall.html

*World Floods*

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/22/if-precipitation-extremes-are-increasing-why-arent-floods/

The worst floods ever recorded were in China in 1931 (1 to 4 million deaths) and in 1887 (900 thousand to 2 million deaths) Nothing in recent history comes anywhere near those Floods. see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods

The closest 21st Century flood was in India 2016 when up to 8000 may have died.

*How about Droughts then?*

Any of the World's top ten worst drought in this century.

https://www.history.com/news/7-withering-droughts

Nope and note that the Syrian drought of 2006 to 2010 was caused primarily *by extremely poor Water Management *and not Global Warming. see

https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2010/03/25/why-water-shortages

Just a note about US droughts, NOAA have an excellent Interactive animated presentation of the Palmer Drought Severity Index going back to 1900. This shows that probably the worst 21st century year was 2012.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers/psi/201001-201502

Please be aware that when loading the Site and after submitting your selection the data takes a long time, so be patient.

Of course any genuine Scientist wouldn't exaggerate about drought would they, want to bet, how about Katharine Hayhoe?

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/more-on-the-katharine-hayhoe-permanent-drought/

But of course she is not the only Scientist exaggerator, there was the Father of the CAGW hoax James Hansen predicting Manhattan would be under water by now.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...hansen-new-york-vanished-underwater-midnight/

Also Dr David Viner and the infamous "Children just aren't going to know what snow is"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11...n-blunders-has-disappeared-from-the-internet/

And Dr. Mark Serreze & Professor Wadhams of Serreze - "Arctic is screaming" in 2007 and " The ice is in a "death spiral" and may disappear in the summers within a couple of decades" Wadhams - " This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free" in 2012 fame.

As I pointed out in my post about Arctic Sea Ice, it is currently at the same level as 2006, 13 years later.

David Hathaway 2006 "Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago,". Just how wrong can you be.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24

How about *Deaths due to Natural Disasters*? see

https://realclimatescience.com/2019/04/plummeting-deaths-from-natural-disasters/

If it was not such a serious subject I would really would be Rolling on the Floor Laughing.

johnnyb actually trusts these people ROFL.

One last thing about the current state of Science, never in modern history has there been so much poor science with very poor papers that passed PAL, oops sorry Peer Review that turned out be wrong or irreproducable. Some have, but a lot haven't been withdrawn

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...ford-were-published-in-fake-academic-journals

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/bu...nce-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review/

https://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-side-medical-research-widespread-bias-omissions.html

For much more data see

https://retractionwatch.com/

The latest Climate Change papers to be withdraw are https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/03/02/ippr-withdraw-fake-extreme-weather-claims/

and one that should be

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...all-for-insect-decline-paper-to-be-withdrawn/

What about the *Arctic Methane* *Time Bomb*, well here again the Science is definitely not settled in fact the *DATA *says it is a* NON Problem. *See this 20 year long study that started in 1989.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/warming-may-not-release-arctic-carbon

It appears that they found no change in the Carbon stored in the ground, it was used by the Plants that grew under the warmer conditions.

Also see

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/the-great-arctic-methane-scare-again/

And there is something else to consider, currently we harness Methane Gas from Land Fill Sites and in the USA they use Fracking to harness Shale Gas which is predominantly Methane. Why can't methane collectors be set up on the Tundra?

Japan is already testing using Methane Hydrates from the Sea bed as a fuel, with some success.


----------



## OBP

*Point 10*

*Propaganda and politicization of Climate Change Science.*

johnnyb has posted many rebuttals of posters opinions and data as he says that they or their sources are political.

This is classic psychological projection, it is not the sceptics that are political, it is Climate Science that have become so.

In his last address Dwight D Eisenhower warned about it

https://cei.org/content/eisenhower's-second-farewell-warning

But it is far worse than he imagined because it is not just the US government that is Financing & Controlling the Direction of the Science through University Grants it is basically most of the world via the auspices of the UN via COP meetings and the IPCC.

Warmists always complain that Sceptics are financed by BIG OIL, however very very few Scientists or citizen scientists are or have ever been financed by big oil and the Cash values are miniscule in comparison to the Government and Industry Grants paid to Climate Scientists.

Here are some articles establishing how much and to whom it goes to.

https://guardianlv.com/2014/01/global-warming-causes-global-spending-follow-the-money-video/

https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/

Note who apart from governments are doing the financing.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/spot-the-vested-interest-the-1-5-trillion-climate-change-industry/

The UN created the United Nations Environment Programme (*UNEP*) back in 1972, the Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases was formed in 1985, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( *IPCC*) in 1988 and then the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (*UNFCCC*) in 1992. The IPCC looks at the Science and the UNFCC was formed based on the First Assessment Report (FAR) with all its attention on CO2 reduction. Take a look at the Union of Concerned Scientists explanation of the IPCC mission

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#bf-toc-1

Quote " Organization for the purpose of assessing "the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change." Note that it is not to "understand Climate Science or how Climate works", it's primary purpose is to find information that may blame Humans for Climate Change. To make it even worse they put Green Fanatic in charge of the IPCC, one Rajendra K. Pachauri. see

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...s-resigns-in-scandal-says-mission-is-religion

You might ask why, well perhaps this fits

*H.L. Mencken, famous columnist:* "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

We have had 1970s Ozone Depletion - Montreal Protocol has not worked, 1970 Acid rain Scare - debunked, Global Cooling - failed due to a return to warming, Global Warming - running out of steam and now the latest are Atmospheric Polution & Mass Extinctions.

With the support of all the UN Nation's Governments ploughing money into research that would support the IPCC Climate Research became a Money Train and as the say it is a case of follow the money. It lead to malfeasance in both the IPCC and the Scientist doing the work. The IPCC did not use just Scientists for the Reports they wrote they used all sorts of Green Organisation people. see

Donna Laframboise's Book the Delinquent Teenager, she and many others researched those reports to great depth and the results were shocking.

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/

More corruption at the IPPC

https://archive.org/details/fs_cc_IPCC_Political_Corruption

There was also some Scientists who stopped supporting the IPCC because what they presented for the reports was not used because it was not "on message" or much worse their conclusions were altered without permission.

This also lead to the problems exposed in the Climategate emails in 2009 which johnnyb didn't bother to read and instead accepted a Government whitewash to ignore what went on them. THey go a long way to what went on then and continued to this day. There are many copies and analysis scattered around the internet to confirm them.

There is an excellent round up of the concerns here

https://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate

It is typical of johnnyb to attack Steve McIntyre, who just happened to be an IPCC Reviewer over his analysis of the hockeystick graph used on the fro t of the IPCC reports because he was only a mathematician and Statistician and didn't understand Physics, The whole point was that it was not about the Physics it was aboutincorrect use of Statistics, something that is rife in Climate Science

But the one of the really major concerns is to do with Peer review which exists to this day. Many contrarian Scientists could not and cannot get their papers published. This stems from the discussions of methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. Of course the opposite was also true any Paper with Climate Change, Global warming or CAGW in the title or text was an almost guarantee of passing regardless of the quality of the paper, as I mentioned in Point 9. This has allowed Warmists to claim a. there are more Peer reviewed papers confirming CAGW and b. The sceptic paper must be rubbish because it is not peer reviewed.

There was also illegalities exposed as the emailers discussed avoiding Freedom of Information Requests on the grounds that "they will only use the data to find something wrong with it or our analysis".

Also note the comment on William Connelly rewriting the data on Wiki.

The *UNFCCC *which organises the Conferences of the Parties* (COP) *meetings which is the propaganda arm of the UN Climate organisation. The outrages claims on climate issued by the participants of these meetings, repeated by Governments, Celebrities and now brainwashed School Kids and not denied by Climate Scientists, in fact quite often reinforced by them are designed to frighten the world in to submission to accept the spending of over a trillion Dollars a year to "Combat" Climate change. The whole aim of these meetings as declared by various UN members is to first of destroy Capitalism, bring about UN agendas 21 2030 and Sustainability with the evential aim of a "*One World Government*" ie World Communism. This is not a Conspiracy Theory, because there is no conspiracy, they are quite open about it. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal is based on it.

I think that is extremely Ironic that the COP meetings held to lower CO2 output has up to 200,000 people flying from all over the world to attend them, talk about the height of hypocrisy, but hen again of course they know that it is just a massive fraud and the biggest Scientific SCAM ever perpetrated by man.

To show you how they plan see we start with *Christiana Figueres*

https://www.azquotes.com/author/32264-Christiana_Figueres

The top one says it all "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution." Which was basically repeated by Naomi Klein and ms Figueres again

https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/dia...imate-change-used-un-promote-economic-agenda/

There is also this article on the topic

https://canadafreepress.com/article...stitution-for-the-world-and-our-own-constitut

*Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister:* "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

*Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21":* "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

*Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: * "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Club of Rome, it fits with the *H.L. Mencken quote*

_"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, _*we came up with the idea* that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like _*would fit the bill"*_

*Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer:* "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

*Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance:* "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

*Quote by Robert Muller, former UN Assistant Secretary General:* "In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.

Enough to get the idea?

Now johnnyb be says that REAL Scientists would not be swayed by this Propaganda and not take part in it, now I am not sure if he really believes this, but if you were a modern day Scientist and to

Get Finances (Grants) for your work

Gain Promotions

Get your Work Published

Stay in Your Job

Gain Scientific Notoriety

Travel all over the world attending meetings

Would you be part of the CAGW club and toe the line or try and find the truth, with no money, a stunted career and if you find some contrary data, not be able to publish it and if you try to or go to the press get hounded out by your friendly Climate Scientists on the gravy train and possibly even lose your job?

Think it couldn't happen, how about Roger Pielke jr hounded out of his job, the ironic thing is that he is not an out & out Sceptic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_A._Pielke_Jr.

Judith Curry resigned.






Professor Lennart Bengtsson hounded out of his new job with GWPF

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...cCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

Mish Michaels lost her job

https://www.thegwpf.com/meteorologists-sacked-for-having-the-wrong-views/

Peter Ridd sacked for not toeing the line over The Great Barrier information being published.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/04/peter-ridd-wins-on-all-counts-against-james-cook-uni/

has just won his case against Cook University.

https://morningmail.org/universities-muzzling-climate-sceptics/

That is of course just one side of the coin, there is also all the money to be made by Non Scientists.

Climate Change advice groups for Industries, councils and Governments

Renewable Energy Advisors

Renewable Energy Providers

NGOs & Quangos, here is an example of the sort of money available

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/01/20/uk-govt-feeding-the-climate-gravy-train/

Yep that is a German Charity distribution group with a turnover of 2,344,647,174 Euros.

Which brings me on to the Second part of the Scam, replacing perfectly good Base Load Fossil Fuel Generators with Intermittent Renewable Energy with half the Life of Fossil Fuel Generators.

The world has spent about $4Trillion between 2000 & 2016 (including Ancillary costs) plus another 300Billion in 2017. see

http://euanmearns.com/worldwide-inv...hes-us-4-trillion-with-little-to-show-for-it/

and

https://webstore.iea.org/download/summary/1242?fileName=English-WEI-2018-ES.pdf

Now see what we have got for that $4Triilion

https://www.iea.org//statistics/?co...yFuel&mode=chart&dataTable=ELECTRICITYANDHEAT

It is right at the bottom of the Chart, you can see how much it is by placing your cursor on it. But as you can see it is miniscule in relation to overall Generation.

With all the world Governments, Mass Media, the UN, all pushing the CAGW scare stories the genral public are being Brainwashed. With Schools using this data to teach our Kids they are also being brainwashed, to such an extent that it is Child Mental Abuse, with a lot of these kids actually believing the Polar Bears are dying and the world is likely to end in 12 years.

This is an absolute disgrace and condoned by Scientists the world over, including johnnyb

I have now had enough of trying to explain the sceptic position and I will leave up to anybody who reads it to make up their own minds and might even persuade them to do a little research of their own.

I won't be posting any more on the subject, so goodbye.


----------



## OBP

*Last Post*

In this post I am responding to Cookiegal about her assessment of my conduct.

First of all the System does not work in displaying the acceptance of this Forum's Rules as suggested in your "Guidelines and Expectations".

Perhaps it was negated by my previous "Trusted" status.

To tell you where I am coming from I grew up with my Fathers motto ringing in my ears, "if a job is worth doing it is worth doing well.

I have 2 Character Flaws 1. I am very Competitive and Combative and 2. have a strong abhorrence of injustice. At school I played Football, Rugby & Hockey. I won a boxing medal and held the school 100 yards sprint record. I ran for my county at 100 & 220 yards, played Table Tennis at league standard, Squash, Badminton, Darts, Pool, Ten pin Bowling at league standard, Bowls and shot .22 Rifle for Woolwich Arsenal, .22 Pistol at 10 yards and .22 rifle at 25, 50 and 100 Yards in NSRA competitions for a local club, trained as a Range Officer and taught my local Scout Group 6 yard and 10 Metre Air Pistol & Rifle target shooting, under my tutelage they won the UK scout championship 3 years out of 4.

But I do have one redeeming feature I like helping people.

My Forum motto is "I do not give up easily" and that is a life style thing, not just for the Forum.

I have reviewed the Guidelines applicable to your assessment, which was incorrect in one aspect, you said Valis twice warned me about "Profanity" when in fact it was "Vulgarity".

Rules pertaining to this particular situation on this thread.

General Forum Guidelines :-

1. Be Polite & Don't Abbreviate

We also ask that everyone use proper forum etiquette when posting. This means that you should always be polite and respectful of others and profanity is never appropriate in any shape or form (even if alternate symbols are used in its place).

2. Report Problems - Don't Join Them

Should you find a post objectionable and/or offensive or if you have an issue with another member, first and foremost use the report button. This alerts the administration to review the report and take any action that may be deemed necessary. Please refrain from addressing the post in the thread or continue with any inflammatory posting. That generally only serves to make matters worse by inciting retaliation and escalating the situation.

General Infractions :-

1. Forum Flooding

You should also try to avoid replying excessively to the same thread when no other member is participating in the discussion.

2. Irrelevant/Inflammatory Content

While we certainly don't discourage productive and useful debate relating to the particular topic at issue, posts that are made for the purpose of arguing or debating, in a nonproductive or inflammatory manner, an irrelevant or ancillary issue with either the topic starter or another poster are not permitted.

3. Profanity

Tech Support Guy was designed to be a community of people who can help one-another, and should be completely free of any profanity and vulgar language. There is absolutely no excuse for being rude to a user. Uncivilized and offensive language (especially cursing of any sort), images, or anything else, used anywhere on the board (including your user name) is completely unacceptable.

This Forum Guidelines :-

General Guidelines :-

1a. Relationships develop here that result in some degree of banter between members. These may appear to be personal attacks but they are acceptable as long as they are made in good fun and not in poor taste. If you are not the member being addressed in these situations then please do not report these posts unless, of course, their content is particularly offensive and/or violates any of the other general site rules.

Who is the judge of what is "in good fun and not in poor taste". The poster may consider it fun or funny, but the recipient may not.

2a. Should you find a post objectionable or offensive, do NOT address the poster in question on the boards. This is inflammatory posting and only serves to incite retaliation and escalate the situation. Please use the report button to notify the Community Moderators of the situation and they will take any action that's deemed necessary.

3a. Moderators are not here to enforce personal or individual views of what constitutes "good taste".

How is this different to "Vulgarity" & Profanity, modern youngsters think nothing of including foul language in virtually every sentence.

4a. Although participants in these threads are expected to take part in the discussions or debates, should they fail to reply when challenged then they are not to be continuously "hounded" for a rebuttal or response.

I am not sure if you read the Thread from the start or just from when I posted, your assessment was that mine was an unprovoked initial post in this thread wherein I insulted Johnny b with all sorts of name-calling and derogatory remarks.

I didn't know this particular forum existed as I only ever check the Business Applications, but on Saturday I saw the side bar with a Climate Change post, a subject I am interested in

I read through the post and quickly realised that sceptical posters were ganged up on by johnnyb and Valis, not that johnnyb needs any help, but the provocation was not against me, but most of the sceptical posters.

It was patently obvious that although most of the comments contained some scientific content they were couched in dismissive, ridiculing and personal language.

The most obvious being responses to Chawbacon who on 2 occasions on page 3 & page 8 complained about johnnyb's responses with

post 31 "By the way Johnny... Do you realize that you are perfectly acting out my complaint/concern with media involvement? Does it really matter that we disagree on the questionable science? Why not put aside the continued insults, name calling, and belittlement of opinion

post 106 "And here comes the name calling and insulting of any logical analysis when a dissenting voice is heard. So sad. And a deliberate attempt to misconstrue also.".

I thought that Chawbacon showed great patience and as he was being ganged up on I posted as support.

When I see such behaviour I believe in fighting fire with fire, where I could have used Guideline 2 and reported it, but it was not aimed at me (Infraction 1a) and obviously Chawbacon did not feel the need to do so.

My first post was overly aggressive, but my assessment of johnnyb may have been offensive to him but was accurate, especially the "warmist Troll", please read

https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-internet-trolls-3485894

In particular

number 2 the Persistent Troll

"This type of troll loves a good argument. They can take a great, thoroughly researched and fact-based piece of content, and come at it from all opposing discussion angles to challenge its message. They believe they're right, and everyone else is wrong. You'll often also find them leaving long threads or arguments with other commenters in community comment sections, and they're always determined to have the last word - continuing to comment until that other user gives up."

tick for johnnyb

number 3 the Grammar and Spellcheck Troll

"They're the people who always have to tell other users that they have misspelled words and grammar mistakes. Even when they do it by simply commenting with the corrected word behind an asterisk symbol, it's pretty much never a welcomed comment to any discussion. Some of them even use a commenter's spelling and grammar mistakes as an excuse to insult them."

tick for johnnyb

number 5 the Show off, Know it all, or Blabbermouth Troll

A close relative to the persistent debate troll, the show-off or blabbermouth troll is a person who doesn't necessarily like to participate in arguments but does love to share his or her opinion in extreme detail, even spreading rumors and secrets in some cases. Think of that one family member or friend you know who just loves to hear his or her own voice. That's the Internet equivalent of the show-off or know-it-all or blabbermouth troll. They love to have long discussions and write lots of paragraphs about whatever they know, whether anyone reads it or not.

tick for johnnyb

Moving on to my actual offenses, I did not see the first warning as I was busy responding to johnnyb, I didn't see the second warning as I was responding to johnnyb continuing to slanderously call me a liar over my Business Applications posting.

So I assume that I offended in the same way as the first time.

The offense was for the use of vulgarity, unfortunately there are no examples of what is and what is not considered vulgar.

I assume from the first warning from Valis involved the combination of Bull & the common word for Excrement, am not sure as the word was removed.

I do not know what the second one was for as Vilas did not say.

I did not lose my temper with johnnyb calling me a liar, I decided to ignore all of his future posts, what tipped me over the edge was Valis

All through this thread he has attacked other posters with generalities about Sceptics being Flat Earthers, Moon Landing conspiracy theorists and idiots and Sceptic posters have a lack of understanding without providing any evidence of why, even when requested.

As well as that he contravened item 4a for this Forum, hounding for an answer from Chawbacon, as of course did johnnyb with both Chawbacon and especially myself.

He also as Moderator did not respond to Chawbacon's request to his buddy johnnyb to respond in a grown up fashion and stop the abuse and ask johnnyb to desist, even though he knew his background.

At no time did he reprimanded johhnyb for his style of posting, including calling me a liar, being insulting and using abbreviations, in fact during the debates he and johnnyb tended to reinforce each other's responses like a mutual admiration Society.

He also repeated abbreviations, (general forum guideline 1), albeit a minor infraction.

*However on every Forum I have been on, which numbers in the dozens, the abbreviation BS used by mygenerericemail & Chawbacon & johnnyb and repeated by Valis stands for Bull ****, (oops used it again) the very thing that I appear to have been warned about for vulgarity. johnnyb used it in posts #19, #32 #143, #175, #177, #180 and #200 the post above my first warning and not one mention of it by Valis.*
*He also did not warn johnnyb for using another version of my offense i e crap/crappy which is also vulgar three times in #52 on page 4 and again in posts # 170 & #171, on page 12 and again with it's derivative in post #144 on page 10 and I notice that Valis used himself on the Trump poll thread to replace a word used by Idontknow and you condoned.*
So here we have a "Staff member" and a poster combining 2 infractions in one & using the vulgar word Crap without a single word from you, which looks suspiciously like double standards from where I sit.

However I fully understand your stance on my profanity in response to Valis.

I have never been a TSG Staff member, I have never posted for TSG, but for the posters with problems and the satisfaction of having helped them, your removal of Trusted Advisor status is immaterial to me because as I stated to Valis in my over the top rant I will no longer be posting on this Forum.

I realised that due to my nature I would not be able to ignore johnnyb's continued goading or his warmist propaganda, I have totally ignored reading his Trump Derangement induced posts on the US President for the same reason.

I decided to complete the points that I intended to make about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming because I think that anybody reading the thread needs a more balanced view of the issues than the one supplied by both johnnyb and Valis.

Thanks to TSG for providing a platform for helping others and spreading knowledge I have enjoyed a great 14 years.

My longest group of threads was with Vanessa1 over a 3 year period.

I own up to marginally breaking the helping via email communication rule as I sometimes went on to help people after the post was Solved.

I helped a very nice lady over a 3 year period in the US who ran the Belvedere county charity based Food Pantry, a nice US housewife for a year running a charity Theatre group who turned out to be an excellent Access & VBA programmer.

A US QC Engineer for 3 years, a man in the UK running a 1 man business for a year, a very nice chap in Tasmania who still occasionally communicates with me after 10 years.

However vigorous debating with abusive, Intellectual bullying Trolls is not good for my health, so I will no longer do so, in this case I do actually give up.

Goodbye.


----------



## Cookiegal

All I will say is that it's not up to you to defend other posters. If they are offended by the way they are addressed and don't report it then that means they accept it. For the record, Johnny b didn't report anything, it's not his style actually. The way he interacts with other members is between him and them. Of course we will step in if we see something totally inappropriate and you can see he was also reprimanded for his part in this exchange but we are not reading all of this stuff on a daily basis nor are we babysitting anyone.

I will make some clarifications, spelling the bull word is not acceptable but we do allow the short form BS but only because it's a separate area of the site from the technical threads where a little more is tolerated. I realize your posts were in quick succession and you may not have seen the first reprimand before making the second so I'll give you that, perhaps the infraction for "vulgarity" was a little heavy-handed but everyone makes mistakes and it certainly doesn't justify the comments addressed to the Moderator in retaliation. There is no excuse for that. The preferred course of action would have been to contact him or another Moderator or Administrator and explain the situation and I'm sure they would have understood and probably reversed the infraction. For the record, valis has a habit of using the term "vulgarity" for "profanity". Regardless, they do go hand-in-hand. We shouldn't have to explain to adults what constitutes profanity and what does not.

If you wish to discuss this further I'm willing to do so in a personal conversation (private message) but not here in the thread as that's not the proper platform.


----------



## valis

OBP, I agree fully with everything Cookiegal has stated; by all means, please feel free to PM me at any time whatsoever. That said, I dont debate via PM nor will I tolerate attacks on me or any other member. 

I dont know if you saw my warning prior to the second posting, but I also do not care. My loyalty is to this forum; the owner and Admins saw fit to allow me to assist this site and for that I am eternally grateful. I learn a lot from here and to be honest Ive learned a lot from you over the years. Your thread with Vanessa1 is easily the longest thread Ive ever seen here, outside of the discussion forums of course.

'Vulgarity' and 'profanity' are literally synonyms of each other. Etymologically, I believe 'vulgar' far predates 'profane' but both are interchangeable.

All that said, I do hope you choose to stay. Your knowledge of Excel and Access is very deep indeed. Maybe stay away from the debate forums though.

Regardless I hope all will find you well.

Thanks,

v


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Before I leave the TSG Forum for good I am going to make several posts, they are for anybody visiting this Thread so that can get an alternative viewpoint.


Sounds a lot like 'alternative facts'.



> I will not be answering any questions or responding to any comments, ....................


Of course, why start now?



> However WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, SCEPTICAL WEBSITES AND SCIENTISTS WILL BE REFERENCED.


Will many be blogger scientists?



> However WARNING, WARNING, WARNING, SCEPTICAL WEBSITES AND SCIENTISTS WILL BE REFERENCED.


Of course. Out of the entire population of scientists, not every one agrees with the consensus. It's been that way since the first of mankind asked the question 'why'.



> I would also like to apologise in advance to the length of some of these posts as I want to treat them with sufficient detail to explain the Sceptical viewpoint. They are not definitive and can't cover every aspect of why some of us Sceptical of CAGW and AGW, that takes books and there quite a few out there to read.


That's OK. the minutiae may even be interesting.



> The use of the term Climate Change Denier is being used to shut down Scientific Debate.


And how does this relate to your argument?
You are here posting.
You do deny a consensus of scientific opinion.
You posted it was 97%.
In what way aren't you a denier?



> Anybody who challenged the CAGW Consensus was called a Sceptic, scepticism is the basis of Scientific research and theories.


No. The 'scientific method' is the basis of scientific hypothesis and theory with skepticism a challenge for correctness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Denial for any reason other than promoting understanding is simply non scientific.
Like your denial of ocean acidification based on Ph sophistry.



> There have been many people in the past who have challenged the Consensus going all the way back to Copernicus, Kepler & Galileo.


Irrelevant.
They made their points but many didn't.
We could go into the likes creationism, the mysteries of ancient pyramids, perpetual machines to find loser skeptics.....but that would be irrelevant to the discussion also.



> There are probably quite a few more, but they make the point that Consensus is NOT settled Science, in fact it is not even Science, it is Groupthink.


Going against the consensus only has an impact if there is value to it.
Minutiae simply don't count for much other than pointing out complexity. To have the impact of reversal of hypothesis or theory it has to be great enough to argue for a new hypothesis and/or theory.

I asked you to explain your hypothesis on what replaces CO2 as the green house gas that impacts global warming. No reply.
Earlier you poorly presented H2O that came with 'Ifs' that also looked like minutiae.

The Earth has been warming and you post 1997 results that were withdrawn. You cherry picked years that show up in that Wikipedia graph, that shows trends.
Trends you don't seem to like, Cherry picked examples you do.
That's not skepticism. That's a bias.



> Johnnyb made the the following statements in response to other posters comments
> 
> "There are no skeptics among deniers" and
> 
> "Mostly the deniers are old discredited deniers"
> 
> "He is on the Denier List" (except it actually says they may not actually be MMC deniers LOL)
> 
> I am not sure what the second quote is, but the first point suggests that deniers are NOT actual sceptics.


Irrelevant to the topic.
But how can a denier be a skeptic when they deny warming of the Earth or manners in which it is warmed?
Denial of reality isn't rational, even if done for financial motivation.



> Well there is an interesting article here
> 
> https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-slur-deniers/2015/05/15/id/644978/


LOL! Newsmax. The online news site that has been seen to use it's own reporters as authoritative sources. Yep. Do a search in the closed TSG 'Civilized Debate' forum and you'll find me outing them for that exact abuse of reporting. 
Do they still do it?
I don't know, but they have in the past. 
But what about now?
Read your Newsmax article
Then read their source
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060018646 
And compare content.

Same old Newsmax tricks. Distortion. On a large scale.

BTW, as you'll encounter 'Obama' later in the article.....at TSG I was not a backer of Obama. I was skeptical of him 



> that outlines how the Climate Machine moved from calling anti CAGW people Sceptics to calling them Deniers.


You obviously did not read Newsmax's authoritative source:
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060018646

I did 



> Anybody not agreeing with the AGW (by now morphed in to Climate Change) consensus is discredited for Scientific Argument purposes, so now let's take look at some of those people.
> Richard Linzen - Physicist Specialising in Atmospherics & Ex IPCC Lead Author
> * https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen
> He is funded by fossil fuel interests, such as Peabody Coal
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rgy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding *
> 
> Freeman Dyson - Physicist
> *I would put him in the skeptic column.
> But not for his expertise, more for his opinion.
> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/freeman-dyson-and-the-irresistible-2009-04-30/
> 
> 
> 
> Dyson started out sounding as if the whole thing was overblown, noting that the prospect of global warming is a problem that should be taken seriously. But he also said that no one should be alarmed about it yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not an alarmist, nor am I*
> 
> Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield - Climatologist (Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report)
> * https://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/dr-oliver-w-frauenfeld/
> Looks like some bias with involvement in the Marshall Institute
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute#Global_warming
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute#Accusation_of_conflict_of_interest
> 
> *
> 
> Prof Myron Wyn Evan B. Sc., Ph. D., D. S - Physicist (Sigma Pi Sigma of the American Institute of Physics 1995)
> * Member of a denier site... Principia Scientific International
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein-Cartan-Evans_theory
> Really?
> Read it and imagine believing his stance on climatology  *
> 
> Dr Charles Wax - past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Currently professor of Geography and Climatology at Mississippi State University
> * He's made several denier lists, but all I could find on his position about climate were opinions and dead political links *
> 
> Dr. Edward Wegman - Prof of Statistics
> * Scientific?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report#Plagiarism_charges_against_Wegman *


Deleted non experts in the field climatology.

You are simply wasting everyone's time OBP.



> As you can see there is NO CONCESUS for much more information of why Sceptics are sceptical of Climate Science.



Because they range from the biased to the non authoritative to the inept.
Skeptics are not deniers.



> google
> skep·tic
> 1.
> a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.
> 
> denier
> a person who denies something.


To question or doubt is not the same as denial.
Denial in the face of reality is neither skeptical nor logical.



> Unless of course all those highly educated high flying Scientists don't know what they are


I looked at your list. Searched some and saw your trend.
OBP. You are an example of a denier using other deniers as authoritative sources.

I'll take a look at your other posts, some other time. 
I have a life


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> *Last Post*
> 
> In this post I am responding to Cookiegal about her assessment of my conduct.
> (edited for brevity)
> Goodbye.


You could have sent a private message of your angst to Cookiegirl.
And you seem to have included me.
Talk about sour grapes


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> *Point 6*
> 
> *The demonising of CO2. *
> 
> Chawbacon, after correctly defending CO2 finally admits (after being brow beaten by both Valis & johnnyb) that
> 
> "My surely basic understanding of Global Warming is that greenhouse gasses (pollutants)"


Irrelevant to the science of climatology.



> CO2 is not a Pollutant


You are wrong by the meaning of the word 'pollutant'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollutant


> A *pollutant* is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values.


That definitely is seen in ocean acidification and observed as data in climate change/global warming.
In that respect, those issues occurring are 'sorted'.



> CO2 has now been rebranded by the majority of people who talk about it as "Carbon", you know that horrible Dirty Black stuff, not an Invisible life giving Gas.


Irrelevant to the science of climatology.
This however is:
http://ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/black-carbon

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects-of-black-carbon/

https://www.climatecentral.org/news...-to-co2-in-heating-the-planet-new-study-15465



> CO2 is the building block of all life on Earth, see


No. Carbon is the building block. In the article, CO2 is a necessity for photosynthesis and with out that there would be less O2 on the atmosphere.
The article states:


> Certain plants grow much better in atmospheres with very high densities of carbon dioxide


Yes. So?
Then follows with 


> Carbon Dioxide is not an environmental polluting agent because it is not detrimental or poisonous to life.


And from ocean acidification, we know that definitely isn't correct.
Plants do seem to like it, though 



> CO2 is described as a Greenhouse Gas, ie it absorbs and re-emits Long Wave Infra-red Radiation (LWIR) which results in a warming Planet, it is the only Gas of any quantity in the Atmosphere that does so. But that Quantity only averages out at about 0.04% of the Atmosphere in comparison to Nitrogen at 78% Oxygen at 21% and H2O at 4%.


And yet the concentration of CO2 keeps increasing. Surely you see a mathematical conundrum?
Wait, you are a denier 



> H2O is not actually a gas,



This is so simple I'm almost ashamed to mention it 
Ever hear of terms like humidity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humidity
H2O can phase change from a solid to a liquid to a gas. 
What was your point?



> So CO2 is the only gas in the upper Atmosphere that can re-emit LWIR
> 
> https://coldclimatechange.com/carbon-dioxide-is-a-cooling-gas-according-to-nasa


And yet, global warming since the Industrial Revolution, displaying a hockey stick graph showing CO2 increases along with warming...... is unique and scientificly unexplainable with out the human element.



> .................... Nitrogen and Oxygen in far higher quantities actually retain any heat they are given. Shouldn't they then be called the Greenhouse gases?


I hadn't thought of them as such so I researched it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Non-greenhouse_gases
Nope.

Are you trying to fool me?  
You silly lol!



> H2O in the atmosphere totally controls the local climate,


Well, don't forget mountains, lake effects, elevation etc.
I think you left out a lot of elements.
Shocking  (  )



> The moon which is virtually atmosphere less with therefore zero H2O has even Larger Swings of 300C.


 So? 
Environments are very, very, very,very, very, very,very, very, very different if you haven't noticed. Poor analogy imo. No...terrible.
Facing the Sun on the same side all the time wouldn't help, either. 

You are wasting my time.
But I am getting to know you better 



> However scientifically accepted reconstructions of past CO2 levels versus Temperature have all shown that CO2 Peaks after the temperature and falls after the Temperature has peaked, thus it follows the temperature changes.


Blogger science 
Your skepticism is appalling.
This is an old topic.

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362



> What about those Clouds making it warmer at night I here you ask


No, I didn't ask 



> Except Thermodynamic laws State Heat from a cold object cannot warm a hotter object. There have been arguments on this point raging on the Internet for many years.
> 
> I actually went to the trouble of conducting simple experiments to try and prove that it happens.


Really? 
Are we doing 'Twilight Zone' now?

You do realize you've been simply throwing a lot of blogger science up in the air to see if you can get any of it to stick.



> Place a cold object next to a warmer object and the warmer Cools Faster and the colder object warms, place two objects of the same temperature close together and it is supposed to slow the cooling process, not even measurable to 0.1 Degree C when I tried it. .....But they say it works for CO2 because it is warmer than Space. So an object hotter than Ambient placed next to an even hotter object should warm the even hotter one , nope didn't happen.


Some real problems with your recent rambling.
Sad.
I guess sophistry brought you to this point.



> Before leaving the Subject of Top of Troposphere CO2 LWIR Photons I would like to mention some of the physics and Mechanics involved, the mechanics are never mentioned by Climate Scientists for very good reason. I mentioned the time taken for a CO2 Molecule to emit a Photon but did not discuss what happens to them.
> Well less than a half of them head back towards the surface, they travel a very short distance before impacting another Molecule which can change their direction or absorb them, this is known as the Mean Free Path Length, for CO2 it is calculated to be about 25 -33 Metres, yes metres.
> 
> http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path_Length_Photons.html


Reading this:
http://hannahlab.org/climate-skeptics-nasif-nahles-shaky-math/
your authority looks like he's practicing poor science.

Nasif is also associated with https://principia-scientific.org/tag/nasif-nahle/

Just another climate denier:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/professor-nasif-nahle-publishes-new.html

The hockeystick graph has been verified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Further_reconstructions

and of course my post that you have ignored
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...nt-greenland-melt-in-centuries-long-ice-core/











> You might like to read
> http://www.whyitsnotco2.com/evidence.html


You mean the guy that even got kicked out of
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/10/critical-mass-of-cotton/
for being a troll 

LOL!








> According to the warmists CO2 is a truly magic molecule and has been blamed for a massive list of things that have and could go wrong see
> 
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.htm


Bad link 

I am truly more comfortable reading the thoughts of real scientists with out blogger bias and denial complexes.


----------



## Johnny b

Hey OBP 

Looks like you put a lot of time and effort into those posts.
Were you able to help anyone during your time away <snicker>


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> Before I leave the TSG Forum for good ............


Good morning sunshine 
See that you returned this morning for a peek
I've never seen forum flooding on such a massive scale, not even from the creationist bonkers .

Kudos. 

I'll be taking smaller bites out of your tirade of impossibilities, science posers, deniers, 'the man on the street' scientist, and blogger science.

Probably increase my post count by factors of 10. lol!

Just to summarize:

The demonizing of CO2. 
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-16#post-9598871

Confusion of important terms, ( sophistry? )
Denial of events in reality.
Irrelevant commentary.
Confusion concerning the elements ( sophistry? seeing a lot of that OBP )
Problems with chemistry, ( sophistry? seeing a lot of that OBP )
Denial of reality.
Sophistry.
Moon fantasies! ( ? what the ? )
False claims revisited.
Bad authorities.
Authorities that are not scientists ( OK... I lol'd at that list )
And using a troll as an source that even Anthony Watts made fun of really made me smile LOL!
.......................
onward

Point 7.

Ice etc.
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-16#post-9598872



> There are many so called indicators of Global Warming, none more evocative than the loss of Arctic See Ice and the Poor Polar Bears, my brainwashed grand nephew actually believed that all the Polar Bears were going to die because all the Ice was going to disappear, so they would either die of starvation or drown, sob sob


I'm calling a logical fallacy on that one.
Call to emotion.
Emotions are irrelevant to the science of climatology, by deniers and the political left.
The Polar bears that didn't die on the ice simply moved inland.



> Polar Bears have never done so well with a population in excess of 25,000. In fact they are now more likely to die of starvation due to less food per Bear.


First, they migrated and adapted to a better environment.
Second, they do eat well but have become troublesome around humans.

Interesting comparison:
Inhabitants in Central America are migrating from the same pressure, climate change, while facing the denier crowd. Only Trump seems to have decided to starve them out.

Ironic how bears get treated better than humans by climate deniers. But that is how it looks.

Climate deniers good for bears, bad for humans. Trump ? probably the same. Someone should ask him if he likes bears.

( but yours is simply nonsense from the past, time to move on )



> There were 2 lower periods than 2006 in 2007 and 2012, however they were NOT due to Higher Arctic temperatures as much as Wind & Currents in 2007 and a major storm in 2012.


Cherry picking again.
The discussion is about 'climate', not the erratic swings of weather. 
And all that follows your line of reasoning the same.
Trending is the issue, not day to day, or year to year. trending.
And you deny it.

And you whine and complain when I point out that you are a denier



> Note the wording in ARG1 "It must be recognised though that Sea Ice is *strongly influenced* by Surface Winds and Ocean Currents"


So? How can you magically divorce winds and currents from the warming dynamic?
Warming affects much more than just the status of ice. Both air circulation and ocean currents.
I'm calling sophistry on you, again (  )



> In fact if we look at the history of ships traversing the North West passage we can see that the Ice has been as low if not lower than it is currently.


That would be traveling along Canadian coast lines with out the ability report on Arctic ice conditions other than on a specific route.

As you can see, a ship would not be able to describe an ice extent in detail, only report one exists and the status of it along a coast, far from the polar center.










At best, you could claim shipping in history avoided most of the ice extent.



> Climate Scientists no longer use historic anecdotal evidence as if it does not count.


What you referred to wasn't anecdotal.


> an·ec·do·tal
> 
> (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.


Those were recorded events. I have no problem with them. But they only define a very localized climate, much as the 'Little Ice Age' did.

As climate warming varies, so do climate changes. It's all about energy distribution. That is a dynamic causing variations seen in extremes as readjustment of energy induces changes in the distribution of that energy ( heat ). And sometimes the lessening in an energy exchange brings about localized cooling. But the totality of the energy is THE issue.
And global temp averages show there is a general warming that has sped up.

And you deny it.

...............................

That's enough for now 

Antarctic ice next


----------



## Johnny b

Lucky for you I'm bored with little to do but return briefly to your....massive denial scenario.



OBP said:


> *Point 7.*
> 
> *Ice etc.*
> ( edited for brevity, of course  )
> 
> Antarctic Ice is another so called indicator of CAGW, however it does not fit the picture at all, first of the sea Ice increased dramatically reaching Record levels while the Arctic was losing ice. see
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...-sea-ice-extent-breaks-streak-of-record-highs.


Discussed elsewhere. 
You are simply providing links that match for a selected word search.
And I did mention you seemed a google search warrior in the past.

New data has corrected past observations.
I pointed that out previously.
And I did explain why the unseen melt was more from ocean current changes than the volcanoes.
You are only trying to fool a newly arrived reader that your present spiel hasn't been addressed and refuted.
That is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.



> Settled Science my Foot, NASA Scientists can't even agree among themselves.


You simply don't like new data, so you ignore it and at the same time continue being a denier that ignores the skepticism of the scientists that provided that correction.

imo, very dishonest and only a further example of you being a denier.



> Next let's consider those "disappearing" Glaciers which is another so called indicator, well they are not disappearing, in fact many of them are growing,
> 
> https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm


First, your link. 
Not by Fire but by Ice
THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!

Technically, the Earth isn't out of the current ice age, Technically, until the poles melt completely, it will still be an age of ice. But we have entered into a warming phase. 
Interglacial is the termonology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
( it's a 'geology' thing  )

As to the blogger of that site:
It's Robert W. Felix
By his own admission, he has no College/University degrees in science 
obviously self taught 
https://www.iceagenow.info/about-the-author/

I'll start with a little humor by Felix, but I suspect it wasn't intentional.
( no, I did not watch all or even much of the 2+ hours of it )





Seriously 

More on Felix:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/may/10/environment.columnists
Long article. I suggest a word search for 'Felix'

https://www.desmogblog.com/iceagenow

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Robert_W._Felix

So, what is really going on:

https://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt










If glaciers and poles aren't melting, why is there a rise in sea level? Magic?

IMO, Felix is more than just a denier. Rather 'mental' in a bad way.

And you chose him as an authoritative source LOL! LOL! LOL LOL! LOL! LOL!

Again, why shouldn't I describe you as a denier rather than a skeptic?
Seems simple to me.



> The excuse for this made by the warmists is that "Warmer Air holds more Moisture leading to greater precipitation". Of course this is a contradiction to what was said before when snow was decreasing i e Snow would disappear.


I have no idea who you are referring to.
Warmer air will hold more H2O than cold air.
I don't see how your conclusion relates to it.
Snow does melt more rapidly in warm weather and except for extreme latitudes and altitudes, it all melts.



> The only thing wrong with this is that to get Snow it needs to be near or below zero, i e COLD.


I assume you mean Celsius. 0 being the freezing point of H2O ---water.
What is this 'wrong thing' you speak of?



> And boy has it been cold with cold records being broken all over the northern hemisphere over the last 4 years, these records are not broken by 0.1 degrees C like Warm records, oh no they have been broken by as much as 12 degrees C. But of course it is "only weather" they will say.


There have been days that were cold and it reflected the variances in weather.
There were warm days also, which reflected the variances in weather.

But the trends has been to the + side.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


> The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century
> The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.4 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year - from January through September, with the exception of June - were the warmest on record for those respective months. 5


Logically, from a scientific pov, I do tend to dismiss the insane blogger science you've been posting.
Your authoritative sources are truly a joke, a bad one at that.

Like this:



> For evidence of those records scroll back through the history of
> 
> https://www.iceagenow.info/


Good ol' Felix 

Don't you have any conscience at all" 



> Well another Record has been broken, see
> 
> http://joannenova.com.au/2019/04/earliest-recorded-snow-event-in-western-australian-history/


Interesting how you missed this line in the article:


> We all know this is weather not climate.


 cherry picking denier....LOL!



> Chawbacon, I agree with you, however you are wasting your time with Johnnyb who is just a Warmist Troll.
> All the signs are there, sarkiness, "denier", ad homs, "Fox News", but no substance.
> I expect he is about 20-25 with no historical experience of so called Climate Change.
> He is a Consensus believer and has faith instead of being sceptical, the very essence of Science.


Your very first post to me.
About all I've seen you post is one distortion after another by a long line of deniers, 'blog scientists' and click bait antagonists, some of which don't even agree with themselves.

And you complained I don't respect you? LOL!


----------



## Johnny b

OBP......I do think I have a right to .................

edited: well perhaps that was a bit 'over the top'.

I'll advance further into your denials to see if I was correct after all.


----------



## Johnny b

Real scientists investigating glacial melt.
Not deniers, not bloggers, not impersonators, not click bait artists, and especially not nutters.

* More than 90% of glacier volume in the Alps could be lost by 2100 *

https://www.egu.eu/news/482/more-than-90-of-glacier-volume-in-the-alps-could-be-lost-by-2100/



> The study, by a team of researchers in Switzerland, provides the most up-to-date and detailed estimates of the future of all glaciers in the Alps, around 4000. It projects large changes to occur in the coming decades: from 2017 to 2050, about 50% of glacier volume will disappear, largely independently of how much we cut our greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> .........
> After 2050, "the future evolution of glaciers will strongly depend on how the climate will evolve," says study-leader Harry Zekollari, a researcher at ETH Zurich and the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, now at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. "In case of a more limited warming, a far more substantial part of the glaciers could be saved," he says.
> 
> .....................
> Under the high-emissions scenario, corresponding to RCP8.5, emissions would continue to rise rapidly over the next few decades. "In this pessimistic case, the Alps will be mostly ice free by 2100, with only isolated ice patches remaining at high elevation, representing 5% or less of the present-day ice volume," says Matthias Huss, a researcher at ETH Zurich and co-author of The Cryosphere study. Global emissions are currently just above what is projected by this scenario.


----------



## Johnny b

Real scientists investigating Arctic melt.
Not deniers, not bloggers, not impersonators, not click bait artists, and especially not nutters.

Research paper here:
*Key indicators of Arctic climate change: 1971-2017 *
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafc1b/meta
( please read the abstract, it's too long to post as are the credentials of all those involved in the study.)

News report here:
* Air temperatures in the Arctic are driving system change *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...-in-the-arctic-are-driving-system-change.html



> A new paper shows that air temperature is the "smoking gun" behind climate change in the Arctic, according to John Walsh, chief scientist for the UAF International Arctic Research Center.
> .................
> 
> "I didn't expect the tie-in with temperature to be as strong as it was," Walsh said. "All the variables are connected with temperature. All components of the Arctic system are involved in this change."
> 
> "Never have so many Arctic indicators been brought together in a single paper," he said.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting video. Global CO2 as the seasons change.


----------



## Johnny b

Real scientists doing real scientific research.
Not deniers, not bloggers, not impersonators, not click bait artists, and especially not nutters ....arguing the latest trivial details.

Discussion here:
*What Earth's gravity reveals about climate change *
https://www.awi.de/en/about-us/serv...ths-gravity-reveals-about-climate-change.html

research paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0456-2
* Contributions of GRACE to understanding climate change *
Abstract:


> Time-resolved satellite gravimetry has revolutionized understanding of mass transport in the Earth system. Since 2002, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) has enabled monitoring of the terrestrial water cycle, ice sheet and glacier mass balance, sea level change and ocean bottom pressure variations, as well as understanding responses to changes in the global climate system. Initially a pioneering experiment of geodesy, the time-variable observations have matured into reliable mass transport products, allowing assessment and forecast of a number of important climate trends, and improvements in service applications such as the United States Drought Monitor. With the successful launch of the GRACE Follow-On mission, a multi-decadal record of mass variability in the Earth system is within reach.


----------



## Johnny b

Real scientists doing real scientific research.
Not deniers, not bloggers, not impersonators, not click bait artists, and especially not nutters.

* The Transpolar Drift is faltering - and sea ice is now melting before it can leave the nursery *
https://www.awi.de/en/about-us/serv...-melting-before-it-can-leave-the-nursery.html



> [02. April 2019]
> 
> The dramatic loss of ice in the Arctic is influencing sea-ice transport across the Arctic Ocean. As experts from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research report in a new study, today only 20 percent of the sea ice that forms in the shallow Russian marginal seas of the Arctic Ocean actually reaches the Central Arctic, where it joins the Transpolar Drift; the remaining 80 percent of the young ice melts before it has a chance to leave its 'nursery'. Before 2000, that number was only 50 percent. According to the researchers, this development not only takes us one step closer to an ice-free summer in the Arctic; as the sea ice dwindles, the Arctic Ocean stands to lose an important means of transporting nutrients, algae and sediments. The new study will be released as a freely accessible Open Access article in the online journal Scientific Reports on 2 April 2019
> 
> ..................
> This trend has been confirmed by the outcomes of sea-ice thickness measurements taken in the Fram Strait, which the AWI sea-ice physicists gather on a regular basis. "The ice now leaving the Arctic through the Fram Strait is, on average, 30 percent thinner than it was 15 years ago.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> *Point 8.*
> 
> *Data Adjustments and Instruments.*
> 
> Which are very many and why I asked johnny be if he actualyl used the NASA?NCDC/NOAA webbsites, to which he responded that he read some information. Which is not what I meant at all, I meant had he looked at the ACTUAL DATA.


OBP....I'm not a mind reader. I only know the direction you're headed because I've seen it before.
Say what you mean and mean what you say. It would be helpful.

I'm not a statistician.
Nor am I going to pretend to be one, as a professional or self taught.
I read the data as represented in the graphs and comments of those scientists presenting it.
I have also followed several statisticians on their blog sites.
Tim Lambert had one. Deltoid. Unfortunately rowdy climate deniers eventually defaced it with profanity and threats. He had good credentials and not an alarmist.



> Which is very odd because those controversies have continued and in fact increased to this day.
> 
> First of all I will deal with the legitimate & semi legitimate Adjustment to the Surface Temperature data which includes Quality Control, Time of Observation (TOBS), Homogenisation, infilling, Kriging and Urban Heat Island Affect (UHI).


Then why are you ignoring statements of Hausfather such as:


> Having worked with many of the scientists in question, I can say with certainty that there is no grand conspiracy to artificially warm the earth; rather, scientists are doing their best to interpret large datasets with numerous biases such as station moves, instrument changes, time of observation changes, urban heat island biases, and other so-called inhomogenities that have occurred over the last 150 years. Their methods may not be perfect, and are certainly not immune from critical analysis, but that critical analysis should start out from a position of assuming good faith and with an understanding of what exactly has been done.


Hausfather isn't a climate denier.
Again you've intentionally misled the forum.

* No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine *
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ure-adjustments-bring-data-closer-to-pristine



> A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they're supposed to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOAA adjusted (green) and raw data (red). The dashed black line shows the difference created by the adjustments. Illustration: Zeke Hausfather
> 
> Study shows the adjustments work well
> 
> The new study published in Geophysical Research Letters by Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth, Kevin Cowtan at the University of York, and Matthew Menne and Claude Williams Jr. at NOAA, set out to test how well the adjustments are working. Contrarians' biggest complaints focus on urban heat sources near land temperature stations, and scientists' adjustments to remove that urban heat contamination.
> 
> The authors found the adjustments don't have any significant effect on the average temperature or warming trend since 2004. Lead author Zeke Hausfather explained,


So, again you blow smoke.



> Generally Quality Adjustments ..............
> Pairwise adjustments ..............
> Next we have Infilling.........
> Then we have Kriging (Gridding) ................
> Urban Heat Island Affect (UHI)................


And I find that Hausfather approves of the NOAA corrections.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL067640
abstract:


> Numerous inhomogeneities including station moves, instrument changes, and time of observation changes in the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) complicate the assessment of long‐term temperature trends.
> ..................
> ................
> By comparing nearby pairs of USHCN and USCRN stations, we find that adjustments make both trends and monthly anomalies from USHCN stations much more similar to those of neighboring USCRN stations for the period from 2004 to 2015 when the networks overlap. These results improve our confidence in the reliability of homogenized surface temperature records.


Obviously not what you wanted to find.



> So to sum up this section on Temperature Adjustments if we take the last Graph that johnnyb posted in post #221, which by the way we have no idea where it came from as Wiki doesn't make graphs, of the 1.4C increase since 1910 shown 0.77C, that is 55% of it comes from Authorised Adjustments.


That graph was to show variability with in the curve. Something you apparently have trouble understanding.
But as been shown, by your authoritative source, Hausfather, there was no fraud in the NOAA adjustments and the base station data good from 2004 forward and comparable to prior data.

I suspect you never read much of Hausfather past a google headline search.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-o...oss-earths-surface-and-oceans-mark-early-2019
By Zeke Hausfather

*Global surface temperatures in 2019 are on track to be either the second or third warmest since records began in the mid-1800s, behind only 2016 and possibly 2017. *



> The latest data shows that the level of the world's oceans continued to rise in 2019, with sea levels around 8.5 centimetres (cm) higher than in the early 1990s.


And he projects a rise in sea level.

Missed that? eh!

I'm not a statistician, but I like the guy 

Soooo, why do you fake sooo much?

From here on, in your post, I've skipped.
You've simply misrepresented too much to waste my time on it let alone read it.
Your authoritative source, Zeke Hausfather, which I respect, said it all even if you didn't 

I'll get to the next post later


----------



## Johnny b

*The state of the Science.*[/QUOTE]

Wow, this is certainly a long rant 
Seriously, did you spend all of your 'vacation' hammering a keyboard and frantically shaking your mouse as you google searched catchy terms? lol!

Should I review past 'Points' again?
Not much changed.
One major thing did.
Like Mike in the past, not aware of his sources, put me onto Tim Lambert. Not a climate denier. Mike simply assumed the headline he linked to meant meant something derogatory to science.
And you've done similar.
Thank you ( sounds absurd, but thank you) for introducing a real scientist into the topic.
I suggest you read his web site.
A skeptic. A scientist. Furthering science through correction rather than that the effete pseudo intellectual of the denier cult.

Here we go 



> The "Greenhouse Gas" Global Warming theory has been around since the days of Arrhenius, but it is not without its challengers.


Interesting, but irrelevant to the topic, the intricacies of climate science.



> Sceptics do not challenge the concept of Climate Change, how could they, climate has changed since the world had an atmosphere.


Oh, I get it. A debate involving sophistry.
And yet you used Zeke Hausfather, a scientist as a skeptic. to try to prove a point.
Shades of hypocrisy? LOL!



> According to current Climate Science CO2 has been stable for 100s of thousands of years and only increased lately due to Man,


No. CO2 levels have changed over the geological past and have been measured in findings such as ice cores.
Currently, the issue is the increased rate of change.



> Well interestingly enough NASA has not always said that CO2 "is the climate knob" and drives the climate, here is an old posting that has been removed or rewritten.


Again with the sophistry.
The article refers to the Sun being the major forcing to Earth's climate.
And it is.
And it's variance is cyclical.
It's largely responsible for our climate ( the energy source that drives it ) and with it imposes variances in the climate seen through geological studies.
It's input can not be changed from an outside source.
CO2 on the other hand, exists both from natural causes and man's influence.
The sun's input can not be changed.
Man's influence on CO2 can be changed.

The 'knob' is in the hands of man.



> That is the crux of the Sceptic position, if CO2 contributes to warming, how much is it?


Indeed.
But you are not a skeptic. Your argument has the bias of denial.
You recently positioned a scientist as a denier with out researching his position.
And he was a skeptic. And a scientist arguing for correction. But not denial of the concept.
Which is another reason why I'm skeptical of your arguments.
You bluff by way of arrogance.



> This is the most hilarious part of all, to make the calculation easier they assume the Spherical Earth to be, wait for it, a "Flat Disc". so here are the original "Flat Earth Conspirators" that Valis & johnnyb so denigrate and ridicule.


Again with the sophistry

The blogger you cite ( with no discernible name other than 'Steve' ? ) has made a statement about the solar constant and inferred it is not really constant and then infers the solar constant as a concept applied to a curved surface as if the constant changes with the curvature of the Earth.
The solar constant does not change with curvature of the Earth by the very definition of it and how it's measured.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

Solar irradiance is what is measure by satellite to determine the effect of the solar constant on a curved surface + other factors from weather to flora. And it's this change that is important to climate change studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

It is solar irradience that changes from many factors and curvature plays a big part
https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html

hmmmm!
And some may wonder why I have little patience for deniers.



> Ice INSULATES THE WATER AND KEEPS IT WARMER.



Better said, Ice insulates the water and keeps it from getting warmer 

And as it melts.....well....there you go. The world heats up and we all burn to death 
( J/K of course  )
( Somebody will probably quote me on that  )

So....you spent a week off organizing this tirade of mistakes, misdirection and sophistry .

WOW......and to think you were almost a grand master chess player.



> https://www.wnd.com/2017/07/study-blows-greenhouse-theory-out-of-the-water/


  Really?
https://www.wnd.com/
World Net Daily. One of the more extremist right wing blogs impersonating a news outlet.
TSG was quite familiar with them a decade or so ago. From Mike!

Anyway, it's a reported news article, not a scientific paper ..
Nikolov has his degrees in......Forestry.

Zeller:
PhD, Fluid Mechanics & Wind Engineering (1990). [1], [2]
Political Science Graduation Diploma, USAF Air War College (1987). [2]
MS, University of Utah, Air Pollution & Dispersion Meteorology (1972). [2]
BS, Meteorology, University of Utah (1966). [2]
BS, Civil Engineering, Virginia Military Institute (1965). [2]
Means he's had some education in predicting weather.

Do I really need to follow up on an article in a semi fascist blog about two guys that have no qualifications in climatology?
I don't thinks so.

But I looked at their abstract anyway 
Full paper here, a pdf download:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-ac...inds-widely-overestimated-global-warming.html [/QUOTE]
.........................................
edit: rereading this unusually long post, I see a discontinuity. I had a problem with corruption and had to correct and re-post. Apparently a section was lost. I don't intend to go to the trouble to fill this in with the loss. This conversation is dead anyway, OBP has left. Simply refer to OBP's post to see what the remaining comment refers to if interested.
............................................. 
So let's see who was responsible for that 'recognition'.
From the article:
climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.
So who is he?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
He's of the denier cult with associations to right wing extremist groups.

https://www.desmogblog.com/john-christy
excerpt:


> hristy suggests that a climate "Red Team" be developed which would "produce an assessment that expresses legitimate, alternative hypotheses" for climate change. John Christy's full testimony document is available here (PDF). [21]
> 
> According to the event description, the hearing will focus on "the ongoing debate over climate science, the impact of federal funding on the objectivity of climate research, and the ways in which political pressure can suppress opposing viewpoints in the field of climate science." [20]


Simply do a search in the PDF for 'Red Team'.
It's a code for funding, in this case denier theories, ....a portion of already allotted funding elsewhere.
In other words, cut funding in research in order to promote the denier cult.

Notice his affiliation with the George C. Marshall Institute
https://marshall.wpengine.com/wp-co...ty-and-Spencer-Satellite-Temperature-Data.pdf

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute 


> The George C. Marshall Institute (GMI) is a "non-profit" organization funded by the profits from oil and gas interests and right-wing funders (listed later). It has received substantial funding from Exxon's Exxon Education Foundation.[1]
> 
> Its nominal creators, aside from Exxon-related entities and others, were William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz and Robert Jastrow[2] This industry and right-wing front group has described its role as encouraging "the use of sound science in making public policy about important issues for which science and technology are major considerations." The institute makes claims about "national security and the environment"[3], generally to the detriment of the latter.
> 
> The institute purports to investigate what it calls "facts" about global climate change, which is largely attributed by others to the burning of fossil fuels. The institute also focuses its resources on making claims about the effect of the Kyoto Protocol upon "national security."


Bias anyone?
The cult seems bigger than most think.......or in this case, admit.

And Christy was just made a Science advisor to the EPA by the most climate denying administration to ever govern.

* John Christy Was Just Named An EPA Science Adviser. His Climate Studies Have Been Repeatedly Corrected. *
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/danvergano/john-christy-climate-skeptic-epa-advisory-board

From denier to political activist. John Christy.



> Trump administration appointees to EPA's main advisory panel now outnumber past members by 26 to 19, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. They include fewer university researchers investigating the health effects of toxins and pollutants and more voices of experts from polluting industries or state regulators. And some of the Trump-appointed members hold fringe views in their field - including Christy.
> 
> ...................
> 
> Christy and his colleague Roy Spencer were the first researchers to analyze temperatures in the troposphere, a lower atmospheric layer, using satellite records. They identified cooling - not warming - in recent decades, a surprise in an era of global warming. But when others, including Carl Mears, a senior research scientist at the research company Remote Sensing Systems, reexamined Christy's work in the early 2000s, they found errors that when corrected revealed warming in the troposphere. Christy acknowledged the error, according to the New York Times. As recently as 2017, multiple scientists corrected or raised concerns about how Christy's team was analyzing satellite data.
> 
> ...................
> In congressional testimony on climate change, Christy has touted his own estimates of atmospheric temperatures despite his record of mistakes, drawing complaints of "political grandstanding" from NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt in a 2016 analysis finding distortions in the data that Christy presented to lawmakers.


And this: from one of his university advisors


> "He has made many statements before Congress and elsewhere that are at odds with the scientific evidence because of his personal value system. He is not an appropriate appointee for this advisory panel, unfortunately," said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who was one of Christy's graduate school supervisors.
> 
> Trenberth pointed to Christy's early career as a missionary in Kenya and religious views - namely, that impoverished people need fossil fuels and that providence controls the environment - as excessively coloring his opinion of climate science.


OBP. You post crap.
All I'm doing is chasing down the same type of crap Mike used to post.
Your research seems limited to googled headlines and disreputable sources.

Christy is a denier and now responsible for environmental issues and our health with a preconceived bias.



> In fact the changes have already started, the Atmospheric Global Temperature has dropped 0.4C since the El Nino high in 2016 way below the 1997 El Nino level as well.



You are only sectioning off a trend to eliminate it's obvious path.
The AGT has had momentary reversals through out it's recorded history.
But the trend continues and demonstrates warming.










I see you posted a list of weather changes.
Mike couldn't understand the difference between weather and climate.
The difference was, he didn't understand. And outside of GW and politics, the guy was likable and respected.



> What about all that "Increasing Extreme weather" we keep hearing about?


Hang around a while, it's coming, eventually 

Like the lefties and greenies that exaggerate, you expect too much too quickly in order to prove the science of climatology has no validity.

Distorted newspaper accounts (frequently by reporters with out a scientific background) of climate change are published for increased circulation. A bias to profiteering.
Politicians introduce positions they think will favor them in elections.

The world isn't coming to an end any time soon.
But there is and will be more stress on civilizations as time passes.


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> *Point 10*
> 
> *Propaganda and politicization of Climate Change Science.*
> 
> johnnyb has posted many rebuttals of posters opinions and data as he says that they or their sources are political.


Indeed. 
I have.
And stand by them. With reasons included.

The rest of your post seems to be the typical sour grape of someone exposed, that peers in their own grandiose image too often too long.

Proving Liberals, Leftists and greenies have a bias does not enforce your claim that denial is correct.
You only expose those that use and abuse a bias for self fulfillment of a certain opinion, just as I exposed many of your deniers.

There is profit/advantage to be made from being involved in climate controversy from such activities originating in politics and blogging by greenies and deniers alike.

No scientist works for free. I wouldn't expect them to. But when employers have a need beyond research, there's usually a bias involved. 
Oil, gas and coal for some.
Industry-Polution issues for others.
And politics obviously, both extremes of the Right and the Left vying for control.

You chose to be a denier. I do not care to know what your motive is.
Politically, I favor the concept of centrist. Pragmatism plays a big part in it.

So, I see two sides arguing for control of our society, and global warming is one of their tools.

I haven't seen any greenie activity in this thread.
Mostly your BS.
And you simply do not like being called out on it .....probably because you think yourself more intelligent. And yes, you certainly puffed yourself up early on LOL!

It's been said you are very knowledgeable with business apps. I've seen your posts and would agree.
But you seem to think, that knowledge in this thread has more value than the realities of science.
You argue denial is skepticism. It's not. It's simply rejection.

You tried to paint me as a 'warmist' ( ? ) and a troll.
You attacked me in your very first post and proceeded to do the things you accused me of.
You escalated the rhetoric in this thread and I followed.
I throw an olive branch, and you took it as a challenge and even quoted it 
I don't throw olive branches often. 

I have a history at this site of approaching climate change rationally.
I do not support either the current socialist view nor the fascist nationalist view on global warming.
But global warming is happening. For that, I go to the scientists with better reputations, at least, than the ones you've been using for authoritative sources 

That other forum is closed at this time, but searchable,
I was active in it, in many topics.
You bragged about your post count at TSG. 
My two accounts probably exceed yours by about 20K to 30K.
It only means I've been here longer and expressed my opinions more frequently than you have.

Sometimes I fault Republicans, sometimes Democrats.
Currently, it's mostly Trump. I see a lot wrong and not much right. And he's the guy that's in control.

Again, thanks for steering me to Zeke 

BTW, https://forums.techguy.org/search/32771419/


----------



## Johnny b

OBP said:


> *Last Post*
> 
> In this post I am responding to Cookiegal about her assessment of my conduct.
> 
> First of all the System does not work in displaying the acceptance of this Forum's Rules as suggested in your "Guidelines and Expectations".
> 
> Perhaps it was negated by my previous "Trusted" status.
> 
> To tell you where I am coming from I grew up with my Fathers motto ringing in my ears, "if a job is worth doing it is worth doing well.
> 
> I have 2 Character Flaws 1. I am very Competitive and Combative and 2. have a strong abhorrence of injustice. At school I played Football, Rugby & Hockey. I won a boxing medal and held the school 100 yards sprint record. I ran for my county at 100 & 220 yards, played Table Tennis at league standard, Squash, Badminton, Darts, Pool, Ten pin Bowling at league standard, Bowls and shot .22 Rifle for Woolwich Arsenal, .22 Pistol at 10 yards and .22 rifle at 25, 50 and 100 Yards in NSRA competitions for a local club, trained as a Range Officer and taught my local Scout Group 6 yard and 10 Metre Air Pistol & Rifle target shooting, under my tutelage they won the UK scout championship 3 years out of 4.
> 
> But I do have one redeeming feature I like helping people.
> 
> My Forum motto is "I do not give up easily" and that is a life style thing, not just for the Forum.
> 
> I have reviewed the Guidelines applicable to your assessment, which was incorrect in one aspect, you said Valis twice warned me about "Profanity" when in fact it was "Vulgarity".
> 
> Rules pertaining to this particular situation on this thread.
> 
> General Forum Guidelines :-
> 
> 1. Be Polite & Don't Abbreviate
> 
> We also ask that everyone use proper forum etiquette when posting. This means that you should always be polite and respectful of others and profanity is never appropriate in any shape or form (even if alternate symbols are used in its place).
> 
> 2. Report Problems - Don't Join Them
> 
> Should you find a post objectionable and/or offensive or if you have an issue with another member, first and foremost use the report button. This alerts the administration to review the report and take any action that may be deemed necessary. Please refrain from addressing the post in the thread or continue with any inflammatory posting. That generally only serves to make matters worse by inciting retaliation and escalating the situation.
> 
> General Infractions :-
> 
> 1. Forum Flooding
> 
> You should also try to avoid replying excessively to the same thread when no other member is participating in the discussion.
> 
> 2. Irrelevant/Inflammatory Content
> 
> While we certainly don't discourage productive and useful debate relating to the particular topic at issue, posts that are made for the purpose of arguing or debating, in a nonproductive or inflammatory manner, an irrelevant or ancillary issue with either the topic starter or another poster are not permitted.
> 
> 3. Profanity
> 
> Tech Support Guy was designed to be a community of people who can help one-another, and should be completely free of any profanity and vulgar language. There is absolutely no excuse for being rude to a user. Uncivilized and offensive language (especially cursing of any sort), images, or anything else, used anywhere on the board (including your user name) is completely unacceptable.
> 
> This Forum Guidelines :-
> 
> General Guidelines :-
> 
> 1a. Relationships develop here that result in some degree of banter between members. These may appear to be personal attacks but they are acceptable as long as they are made in good fun and not in poor taste. If you are not the member being addressed in these situations then please do not report these posts unless, of course, their content is particularly offensive and/or violates any of the other general site rules.
> 
> Who is the judge of what is "in good fun and not in poor taste". The poster may consider it fun or funny, but the recipient may not.
> 
> 2a. Should you find a post objectionable or offensive, do NOT address the poster in question on the boards. This is inflammatory posting and only serves to incite retaliation and escalate the situation. Please use the report button to notify the Community Moderators of the situation and they will take any action that's deemed necessary.
> 
> 3a. Moderators are not here to enforce personal or individual views of what constitutes "good taste".
> 
> How is this different to "Vulgarity" & Profanity, modern youngsters think nothing of including foul language in virtually every sentence.
> 
> 4a. Although participants in these threads are expected to take part in the discussions or debates, should they fail to reply when challenged then they are not to be continuously "hounded" for a rebuttal or response.
> 
> I am not sure if you read the Thread from the start or just from when I posted, your assessment was that mine was an unprovoked initial post in this thread wherein I insulted Johnny b with all sorts of name-calling and derogatory remarks.
> 
> I didn't know this particular forum existed as I only ever check the Business Applications, but on Saturday I saw the side bar with a Climate Change post, a subject I am interested in
> 
> I read through the post and quickly realised that sceptical posters were ganged up on by johnnyb and Valis, not that johnnyb needs any help, but the provocation was not against me, but most of the sceptical posters.
> 
> It was patently obvious that although most of the comments contained some scientific content they were couched in dismissive, ridiculing and personal language.
> 
> The most obvious being responses to Chawbacon who on 2 occasions on page 3 & page 8 complained about johnnyb's responses with
> 
> post 31 "By the way Johnny... Do you realize that you are perfectly acting out my complaint/concern with media involvement? Does it really matter that we disagree on the questionable science? Why not put aside the continued insults, name calling, and belittlement of opinion
> 
> post 106 "And here comes the name calling and insulting of any logical analysis when a dissenting voice is heard. So sad. And a deliberate attempt to misconstrue also.".
> 
> I thought that Chawbacon showed great patience and as he was being ganged up on I posted as support.
> 
> When I see such behaviour I believe in fighting fire with fire, where I could have used Guideline 2 and reported it, but it was not aimed at me (Infraction 1a) and obviously Chawbacon did not feel the need to do so.
> 
> My first post was overly aggressive, but my assessment of johnnyb may have been offensive to him but was accurate, especially the "warmist Troll", please read
> 
> https://www.lifewire.com/types-of-internet-trolls-3485894
> 
> In particular
> 
> number 2 the Persistent Troll
> 
> "This type of troll loves a good argument. They can take a great, thoroughly researched and fact-based piece of content, and come at it from all opposing discussion angles to challenge its message. They believe they're right, and everyone else is wrong. You'll often also find them leaving long threads or arguments with other commenters in community comment sections, and they're always determined to have the last word - continuing to comment until that other user gives up."
> 
> tick for johnnyb
> 
> number 3 the Grammar and Spellcheck Troll
> 
> "They're the people who always have to tell other users that they have misspelled words and grammar mistakes. Even when they do it by simply commenting with the corrected word behind an asterisk symbol, it's pretty much never a welcomed comment to any discussion. Some of them even use a commenter's spelling and grammar mistakes as an excuse to insult them."
> 
> tick for johnnyb
> 
> number 5 the Show off, Know it all, or Blabbermouth Troll
> 
> A close relative to the persistent debate troll, the show-off or blabbermouth troll is a person who doesn't necessarily like to participate in arguments but does love to share his or her opinion in extreme detail, even spreading rumors and secrets in some cases. Think of that one family member or friend you know who just loves to hear his or her own voice. That's the Internet equivalent of the show-off or know-it-all or blabbermouth troll. They love to have long discussions and write lots of paragraphs about whatever they know, whether anyone reads it or not.
> 
> tick for johnnyb
> 
> Moving on to my actual offenses, I did not see the first warning as I was busy responding to johnnyb, I didn't see the second warning as I was responding to johnnyb continuing to slanderously call me a liar over my Business Applications posting.
> 
> So I assume that I offended in the same way as the first time.
> 
> The offense was for the use of vulgarity, unfortunately there are no examples of what is and what is not considered vulgar.
> 
> I assume from the first warning from Valis involved the combination of Bull & the common word for Excrement, am not sure as the word was removed.
> 
> I do not know what the second one was for as Vilas did not say.
> 
> I did not lose my temper with johnnyb calling me a liar, I decided to ignore all of his future posts, what tipped me over the edge was Valis
> 
> All through this thread he has attacked other posters with generalities about Sceptics being Flat Earthers, Moon Landing conspiracy theorists and idiots and Sceptic posters have a lack of understanding without providing any evidence of why, even when requested.
> 
> As well as that he contravened item 4a for this Forum, hounding for an answer from Chawbacon, as of course did johnnyb with both Chawbacon and especially myself.
> 
> He also as Moderator did not respond to Chawbacon's request to his buddy johnnyb to respond in a grown up fashion and stop the abuse and ask johnnyb to desist, even though he knew his background.
> 
> At no time did he reprimanded johhnyb for his style of posting, including calling me a liar, being insulting and using abbreviations, in fact during the debates he and johnnyb tended to reinforce each other's responses like a mutual admiration Society.
> 
> He also repeated abbreviations, (general forum guideline 1), albeit a minor infraction.
> 
> *However on every Forum I have been on, which numbers in the dozens, the abbreviation BS used by mygenerericemail & Chawbacon & johnnyb and repeated by Valis stands for Bull ****, (oops used it again) the very thing that I appear to have been warned about for vulgarity. johnnyb used it in posts #19, #32 #143, #175, #177, #180 and #200 the post above my first warning and not one mention of it by Valis.*
> *He also did not warn johnnyb for using another version of my offense i e crap/crappy which is also vulgar three times in #52 on page 4 and again in posts # 170 & #171, on page 12 and again with it's derivative in post #144 on page 10 and I notice that Valis used himself on the Trump poll thread to replace a word used by Idontknow and you condoned.*
> So here we have a "Staff member" and a poster combining 2 infractions in one & using the vulgar word Crap without a single word from you, which looks suspiciously like double standards from where I sit.
> 
> However I fully understand your stance on my profanity in response to Valis.
> 
> I have never been a TSG Staff member, I have never posted for TSG, but for the posters with problems and the satisfaction of having helped them, your removal of Trusted Advisor status is immaterial to me because as I stated to Valis in my over the top rant I will no longer be posting on this Forum.
> 
> I realised that due to my nature I would not be able to ignore johnnyb's continued goading or his warmist propaganda, I have totally ignored reading his Trump Derangement induced posts on the US President for the same reason.
> 
> I decided to complete the points that I intended to make about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming because I think that anybody reading the thread needs a more balanced view of the issues than the one supplied by both johnnyb and Valis.
> 
> Thanks to TSG for providing a platform for helping others and spreading knowledge I have enjoyed a great 14 years.
> 
> My longest group of threads was with Vanessa1 over a 3 year period.
> 
> I own up to marginally breaking the helping via email communication rule as I sometimes went on to help people after the post was Solved.
> 
> I helped a very nice lady over a 3 year period in the US who ran the Belvedere county charity based Food Pantry, a nice US housewife for a year running a charity Theatre group who turned out to be an excellent Access & VBA programmer.
> 
> A US QC Engineer for 3 years, a man in the UK running a 1 man business for a year, a very nice chap in Tasmania who still occasionally communicates with me after 10 years.
> 
> However vigorous debating with abusive, Intellectual bullying Trolls is not good for my health, so I will no longer do so, in this case I do actually give up.
> 
> Goodbye.


^^^^^^

What was your motto again?


----------



## Johnny b

Well, that certainly had the ring of finality.

No denial to it.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting news:

*House Votes to Block U.S. Exit from Paris Climate Accord, as Both Parties Struggle with Divisions *

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...beto-sunrise-republican-democratic-candidates



> Green New Deal supporters want faster action, and they're attacking their own party. Republicans try to back Trump while distancing themselves from deniers.


LOL!


----------



## valis

meanwhile, in Indonesia....https://earther.gizmodo.com/indonesia-is-moving-its-capital-city-as-the-current-one-1834420363


----------



## Johnny b

Of interest:

* 
San Francisco Bay: New plan to combat sea level rise
Airports, roads, office buildings, sewage treatment plants at risk *

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/02/san-francisco-bay-new-plan-to-combat-sea-level-rise/

Real life issues.

Some will deny, of course.



> San Francisco Bay's waters already have risen 8 inches since the mid-1800s. A tide gauge at Fort Point, next to the Golden Gate Bridge, has recorded measurements since 1850.


----------



## Johnny b

Being a Fox News article, I was almost afraid to read it 

But even some at Fox must be concerned or this would never see daylight:

* Hawaii's islands are under threat from rising sea levels, experts warn *

https://www.foxnews.com/science/hawaiis-islands-rising-sea-levels-experts-warn

Ocean level rising and acidification at the same time, same place.
What a way to ruin a paradise.


----------



## Johnny b

The reality of what is being denied.

* UN Warns That 1 Million Species Risk Extinction Because of Humans and Nature Is Declining Faster than Ever *

https://weather.com/news/news/2019-...pecies-at-risk-of-extinction-nature-declining

https://www.ipbes.net/news/Media-Release-Global-Assessment

Too much to copy and paste all points.
A sample.


> "The Report also tells us that it is not too late to make a difference, but only if we start now at every level from local to global," he said. "Through 'transformative change', nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably - this is also key to meeting most other global goals. By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values."
> 
> "The member States of IPBES Plenary have now acknowledged that, by its very nature, transformative change can expect opposition from those with interests vested in the status quo, but also that such opposition can be overcome for the broader public good," Watson said.


It's more than just reducing CO2 emissions, it's a call to conservation.


----------



## Johnny b

Mark Halle:
( Mark Halle is Co-Director of Better Nature and Senior Fellow, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). 
https://www.iisd.org/about/people/mark-halle/all )

https://www.transformationsforum.net/getting-serious-taking-nature-conservation-to-stage-three/



> The aim of Better Nature is to generate a large-scale mobilisation to transform these systems and, in so doing enable, rather than continue to restrain, efforts to reverse biodiversity loss and the impoverishment of ecosystems. This is based on the observation that the level of concern over this issue is simply not wide-spread enough to convince politicians that the low-risk path consists in supporting genuine commitment to conservation targets. The famous lack of political will, everywhere manifest, is simply the result of a cool-headed calculation that addressing the issue head-on will not markedly improve re-election prospects.
> 
> .......we must rapidly identify a wide range of options - promising solutions which, if applied, could begin turning the ship around and establishing nature and natural resources at the heart of the new economic and social status quo. Better Nature will begin with a strong focus on three key fields - technology, finance, and legal action.


----------



## Johnny b

* 'Extraordinary': Almost 1/4 of West Antarctic ice is now 'unstable' *

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-now-unstable-due-global-warming/3706584002/


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article on converting Methane into CO2 with some caveats at the end .

*Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Could turning it into CO2 fight climate change? *

https://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-methane-to-carbon-dioxide-climate-change-20190520-story.html

Scientific source here, but it's behind a paywall:

* Methane removal and atmospheric restoration *
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0299-x


----------



## Johnny b

Seldom discussed consequences of climate change.

* The influence of the mosquito - Will malaria spread in Europe and the Mediterranean as a result of climate change? *

https://www.innovations-report.com/...iterranean-as-a-result-of-climate-change.html



> Malaria-transmitting mosquito species are benefiting from climate change and will therefore continue to spread in Europe and the Mediterranean. The extent to which this spread is advancing can be predicted fairly accurately, according to a recent study by PD Dr. Elke Hertig, a geographer at the University of Augsburg.
> .....................
> 
> With the geostatistical approach called boosted regression trees, BRT, Hertig models the occurrence of mosquitoes in Europe until the end of this century. She concludes that changes in temperature and precipitation will lead to a significant spread of malaria mosquitoes towards the north.


With any luck, they'll be swarming all over Trump's casinos and hotels


----------



## Johnny b

Real scientists presenting results using science rather than the cherry picking nonsense of deniers:

* Climate driving new right whale movement *

https://www.innovations-report.com/...climate-driving-new-right-whale-movement.html



> New research connects recent changes in the movement of North Atlantic right whales to decreased food availability and rising temperatures in Gulf of Maine's deep waters.
> 
> A North Atlantic right whale breaches. New research shows that rapid warming in the Gulf of Maine's depths is changing food availability and increasing risk to these whales -- one of the world's most endangered animals.
> 
> Credit: Anderson Cabot Center for Ocean Life, New England Aquarium
> 
> Right whales have been showing up in unexpected places in recent years, putting the endangered species at increased risk.
> 
> ..............
> Climate change has shifted circulation patterns in the North Atlantic Ocean, including the currents that flow into the Gulf of Maine's depths. This study found that some of these deep waters have warmed nearly 9 degrees Fahrenheit since 2004 - twice as much as the fastest warming waters at the surface. These changes have drastically reduced the supply of right whale's primary prey - a high-fat, rice-sized crustacean called Calanus finmarchicus.


And much more worth reading.

The study can be found here:
https://tos.org/oceanography/articl...on-changes-threaten-conservation-of-endangere

The pdf here:
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/32-2_record.pdf


----------



## Johnny b

* Declassified satellite images show how Himalayan glaciers have shrunk *

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...ages-show-how-himalayan-glaciers-have-shrunk/



> And the rate of ice loss is increasing.
> 
> ................
> 
> Extrapolating that rate to the rest of the Himalayan glaciers would mean that about 4 billion tons of ice disappeared in 1975-2000. For 2000-2016, that number is about 7.5 billion tons of ice. For context, this means 87% of the Himalayan glacial ice present in 1975 was still around in 2000. By 2016, 72% remained.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article:

* Do ice cores help to unravel the clouds of climate history? *

https://www.innovations-report.com/...to-unravel-the-clouds-of-climate-history.html



> For the first time, an international research team led by the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research (TROPOS) has investigated atmospheric ice nucleating particles (INPs) in ice cores, which can provide insights on the type of cloud cover in the Arctic over the last 500 years.
> 
> .............
> The fact that mankind has caused global warming through its emissions is undisputed among researchers. However, it is unclear how much the clouds in the atmosphere have been changed as a result. Researchers therefore also hope to gain important insights from investigations into ice nucleating particles in the air.


----------



## Johnny b

New study on airplanes and global warming:

* It turns out planes are even worse for the climate than we thought *

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-even-worse-for-the-climate-than-we-thought/



> The contrails left by aeroplanes last only hours. But they are now so widespread that their warming effect is greater than that of all the carbon dioxide emitted by aeroplanes that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the first flight of the Wright brothers.
> 
> Worse still, this non-CO2 warming effect is set to triple by 2050, according to a study by Ulrike Burkhardt and Lisa Bock at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Germany.
> 
> Altogether, flying is responsible for around 5 per cent of global warming, the team says, so this figure will soar even higher - and no meaningful actions are being taken to prevent this.


----------



## Chawbacon

Hey Johnny. Just an offhand thought here...

I bought a bottle of water yesterday and noted that "Pure Mountain Water" was on the label. So, I started wondering if drinking the "Pure Mountain Water" contributes to Global warming, or should I be looking for a bottle of that 'Impure Mountain Water" instead?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hey Johnny. Just an offhand thought here...
> 
> I bought a bottle of water yesterday and noted that "Pure Mountain Water" was on the label. So, I started wondering if drinking the "Pure Mountain Water" contributes to Global warming, or should I be looking for a bottle of that 'Impure Mountain Water" instead?


I think you should see a doctor


----------



## Chawbacon

*"We had expected more Melting" *
https://electroverse.net/we-had-exp...-arctic-ice-forces-norwegian-icebreaker-back/


> The ice is still *3m (10ft)* thick, in mid-July! Even the researchers' long special-purpose chainsaws proved hopeless, while the 20,000 horsepower Kronprins Haakon, at a cost of USD $175 million, failed miserably at attempts to push through.
> 
> Klassekampen, a respected _left-leaning_ Norwegian newspaper writes: "Polar bears were seen on Bjørnøya this past winter -located in the middle of the Barents Sea- which shows that the ice edge was very far south."


So, the graph above is concerning historic solar output and NASA's prediction of a further drop in expected solar output. Might be time for the Global Warming Believers to consider that an Ice Age could be around the corner.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> *"We had expected more Melting" *
> https://electroverse.net/we-had-exp...-arctic-ice-forces-norwegian-icebreaker-back/
> 
> So, the graph above is concerning historic solar output and NASA's prediction of a further drop in expected solar output. Might be time for the Global Warming Believers to consider that an Ice Age could be around the corner.


Interesting find.
Doesn't seem to align with other observed data, however.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Could it be that the reason is it's a blog fronting as an authority..... that cherry picks ? 
( https://electroverse.net/blog/ )

I see Spencer's handy work on their front page.
And we know about ol' Roys reputation:
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
Kinda biased  

I also see a chart by the DANISH METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE.
But if you go to their site, you see a different graph that seems a tad different 
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php









From their web site:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php


> Since the 1970s the extent of sea ice has been measured from satellites. From these measurements we know that the sea ice extent today is significantly smaller than 30 years ago. During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.


Shocking 

I also see mention of the FINNISH METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE.
Hmmmm?
Here's what their web site has posted:
https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/press-release/1064074585


> June was warmer than average in nearly all parts of the country. The average temperature varied from about 10 degrees Celsius in the north of Finnish Lapland to about 18 degrees in the south and south-east of the country.


You can read their press releases here:
https://en.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/press-release-archive

They don't look like global warming deniers or supporters of them at all 

Next up is that graph by SIDC / SILSO
So let's go to SIDC / SILSO and see what it means:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/
Which links directly to this explanation:

*Solar experts predict the Sun's activity in Solar Cycle 25 to be below average, similar to Solar Cycle 24 *
https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-sun-activity-in-solar-cycle

And that's just on their front page 
Jack, why do you bother?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ................
> 
> ... Might be time for the Global Warming Believers to consider that an Ice Age could be around the corner.


Or maybe not 

* 'This is unprecedented': Alert, Nunavut, is warmer than Victoria *

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/heat-wave-alert-nunavut-1.5212801



> Weather watchers are focused on the world's most northerly community, which is in the middle of a record-breaking heat wave.
> ....
> The weather agency confirmed that Canadian Forces Station Alert hit a record of 21 C on Sunday. On Monday, the military listening post on the top of Ellesmere Island had reached 20 C by noon and inched slightly higher later in the day.
> ........
> Phillips said it's the latest anomaly in what's been a long, hot summer across the Arctic.
> 
> Iqaluit saw the mercury rise to 23.5 C on July 9, Nunavut Day - the highest ever for that day. Alaska had its second-warmest June on record.
> ......
> Many scientists believe the changes are at least partly the result of melting sea ice.
> ......
> It's part of a pattern, he said. He's cautious about attributing specific events to any one cause, but not about naming one of the main drivers.
> 
> "With temperatures you've never seen before, you can't dismiss it as not having a climate change component."


----------



## Johnny b

* Canada warming at twice the global rate, leaked report finds *

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/...the-global-rate-leaked-report-finds-1.5079765



> The study - Canada's Changing Climate Report (CCCR) - was commissioned by Environment and Climate Change Canada. It says that since 1948, Canada's annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C, with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia.
> ..................
> 
> According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), since 1948, global average temperatures have increased by about 0.8 C.
> 
> Along with these temperature increases, the CCCR says Canada is experiencing increases in precipitation (particularly in winter), "extreme fire weather" and water supply shortages in summer, and a heightened risk of coastal flooding.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> And that's just on their front page
> Jack, why do you bother?


Well, just to get a rise out of you mostly. 

Nice job discrediting the article though! However, please note that the source articles are from organizations with other articles that line up with many of the belief systems supported by Global Warming Believers, as opposed to Climate Change Skeptics. 

https://dagens.klassekampen.no/2019-07-15/stanset-av-isen
and
https://resett.no/2019/07/15/norsk-...te-betydelig-tjukkere-ismasser-enn-forventet/


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Well, just to get a rise out of you mostly.
> 
> Nice job discrediting the article though! However, please note that the source articles are from organizations with other articles that line up with many of the belief systems supported by Global Warming Believers, as opposed to Climate Change Skeptics.
> 
> https://dagens.klassekampen.no/2019-07-15/stanset-av-isen
> and
> https://resett.no/2019/07/15/norsk-...te-betydelig-tjukkere-ismasser-enn-forventet/


It seems to have gone over your head 

I didn't choose those sources for any reason.
Electroverse did for the purpose of cherry picking and misrepresentation.


> However, please note that the source articles are from organizations with other articles that line up with many of the belief systems supported by Global Warming Believers, as opposed to Climate Change Skeptics.


Ah....it's a little late for that BS 

That's what got that English almost a grand master chess champion (  ) in trouble and caused him a lot of frustration.

Did you bother to translate the links you posted?
Translated:
https://resett.no/2019/07/15/norsk-...te-betydelig-tjukkere-ismasser-enn-forventet/



> Here are thick one-year ice, combined with large batches of multi-year ice. In many places, wind and ocean currents have pushed the ice together into powerful helmets, and several of these are impenetrable to us, says Captain Johnny Peder Hansen.


So, the issue is not temps falling, it's wind and ocean currents.

edit:
Finally got the other link to translate.
https://resett.no/2019/07/15/norsk-...te-betydelig-tjukkere-ismasser-enn-forventet/

Appears to be same or similar as above:


> Here are thick one-year ice, combined with large batches of multi-year ice. In many places, wind and ocean currents have pushed the ice together into powerful helmets, and several of these are impenetrable to us, says Captain Johnny Peder Hansen.


Admit it, you didn't read beyond the headlines LOL!



> Well, just to get a rise out of you mostly.


Of course 
But look at how foolish it makes you look, Jack 

Did you notice how electroverse avoided mentioning the issue was derived from wind and ocean currents?
Of course you didn't 

BTW, less than 10 minutes was spent discrediting electroverse.
Their BS was incredibly obvious with little originality.
Most deniers are like that.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> t seems to have gone over your head
> 
> I didn't choose those sources for any reason.
> Electroverse did for the purpose of cherry picking and misrepresentation.
> Ah....it's a little late for that BS


No... My second post gave you the original source documents that were cited by Electroverse. I am not sure how that is cherry picking.



Johnny b said:


> So, the issue is not temps falling, it's wind and ocean currents.


Ok??? So you are saying that wind and ocean currents create ice sheets over 9 feet thick on the ocean and not recurring below freezing temperatures?  I can accept a combination of wind, ocean currents, and consistent cold temperatures contributing to the unexpected ice buildup (Over 3 years); however, completely discarding recurring cold temperatures seems a bit unscientific to me for some reason. 

Oh... I think you may have missed these parts from that last translated link that you posted...


> The ice is up to three meters thick in the middle of July, nor have the researchers' icebergs and record-long chainsaws been able to penetrate....
> 
> ...In the middle of July we see few signs of thawing and that spring has come. We had expected more melting and that the ice was more disintegrating, "says Captain Hansen, who for several decades has worked on various vessels in the Arctic.


Just a few observations here:

These were seasoned sailors that know how to forge through these conditions, not the cast from Gilligan's Island. Although, Mr. Howell could have financed such an expedition.
When this ship was launched in 2018 it was billed as the most advanced Icebreaker in the world (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/a...st-advanced-research-vessel-sail-arctic-ocean). 
I guess all that Globally Warmed thick ice got the best of the state-of-the-art, 8 ton, 100 meter long Icebreaker.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> No... My second post gave you the original source documents that were cited by Electroverse. I am not sure how that is cherry picking.
> 
> Ok??? So you are saying that wind and ocean currents create ice sheets over 9 feet thick on the ocean and not recurring below freezing temperatures?  I can accept a combination of wind, ocean currents, and consistent cold temperatures contributing to the unexpected ice buildup (Over 3 years); however, completely discarding recurring cold temperatures seems a bit unscientific to me for some reason.
> 
> Oh... I think you may have missed these parts from that last translated link that you posted...
> 
> Just a few observations here:
> 
> These were seasoned sailors that know how to forge through these conditions, not the cast from Gilligan's Island. Although, Mr. Howell could have financed such an expedition.
> When this ship was launched in 2018 it was billed as the most advanced Icebreaker in the world (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/a...st-advanced-research-vessel-sail-arctic-ocean).
> I guess all that Globally Warmed thick ice got the best of the state-of-the-art, 8 ton, 100 meter long Icebreaker.





> My second post gave you the original source documents that were cited by Electroverse. I am not sure how that is cherry picking.


Sincerely, do you have issues with reading comprehension?
Info in the 2 links you posted was left out of the electroverse article to give a different/false interpretation for the thickness of the ice.
That's why I suspected you never bothered to read them.
I suspect something else, now.



> So you are saying that wind and ocean currents create ice sheets over 9 feet thick on the ocean and not recurring below freezing temperatures?


No, that's what those two links I had to translate, claimed.

I even posted the quotes from them.
Read them again ( they are even the same ):



> Here are thick one-year ice, combined with large batches of multi-year ice. In many places, wind and ocean currents have pushed the ice together into powerful helmets, and several of these are impenetrable to us, says Captain Johnny Peder Hansen.


You will find no such statement in the electroverse article.
In leaving out that causation, they built a lie that you repeated.



> I can accept a combination of wind, ocean currents, and consistent cold temperatures contributing to the unexpected ice buildup (Over 3 years); however, completely discarding recurring cold temperatures seems a bit unscientific to me for some reason.


Of course you disbelieve the scenario* that you linked to* (  )
It doesn't fit your denier position and you aren't willing to own your mistake nor your ignorance LOL!



> [*]These were seasoned sailors that know how to forge through these conditions, not the cast from Gilligan's Island. Although, Mr. Howell could have financed such an expedition.
> [*]When this ship was launched in 2018 it was billed as the most advanced Icebreaker in the world (https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/a...st-advanced-research-vessel-sail-arctic-ocean).




And yet, according to the two links that you posted and Google translated, wind and ocean currents were responsible for the patches of thick ice.
Not the crew from Gilligan's island nor the most advanced ice breaker ever built.
( Incredible logic, Mike. er, I mean Jack  )



> [*]I guess all that Globally Warmed thick ice got the best of the state-of-the-art, 8 ton, 100 meter long Icebreaker.


I think Trumpism rots the mind (  )


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ........
> [*]I guess all that Globally Warmed thick ice got the best of the state-of-the-art, 8 ton, 100 meter long Icebreaker.
> [/LIST]


8 tons, huh? 

Maybe that decimal point was a misprint and should have been a comma? 

Reading comprehension LOL!

BTW, it's a research vessel staffed with scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Kronprins_Haakon
It's owned by:
University of Tromsø (50 %)
Norwegian Polar Institute (30 %)
Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (20 %)


> The main user of the vessel will be University of Tromsø, also known as the Arctic University of Norway.





> A high-end research vessel, Kronprins Haakon has an extensive scientific outfit for oceanography, marine biology and geology. The main deck is largely dedicated to scientific activities with 15 fixed and three container laboratories, refrigerated storage rooms, large working deck with cranes and an A-frame for trawling, and a hangar and 3-by-4-metre (10 by 13 ft) moon pool for sampling as well as AUV and ROV operations.[8] Underwater acoustics instrumentation is fitted in two drop keels as well as special "arctic tanks" for operations in ice-covered seas.[


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> No, that's what those two links I had to translate, claimed.
> 
> I even posted the quotes from them.
> Read them again ( they are even the same ):
> 
> You will find no such statement in the electroverse article.
> In leaving out that causation, they built a lie that you repeated.


Correct, there is no such statement in the electroverse article; however, I do not intentionally lie as you prefer to routinely insinuate.

Noting the omission of the "causation" (as you phrased it), is fair game in criticizing the article; but, the causation here cannot by itself explain the thickened ice sheets. 


Johnny b said:


> And yet, according to the two links that you posted and Google translated, wind and ocean currents were responsible for the patches of thick ice.
> Not the crew from Gilligan's island nor the most advanced ice breaker ever built.
> ( Incredible logic, Mike. er, I mean Jack  )


Unfortunately, the analysis from those sources does not hold up well to common sense. Everyone knows that wind and ocean currents alone cannot keep ice from melting, and wind and ocean currents alone cannot add to the thickness of existing ice sheets. To accomplish this observed state, recurring below freezing temperatures are not optional, they are required.

But, as a little experiment, try filling up your Jacuzzi with water that is just above freezing and putting a thick layer ice cubes on top. Now turn on the jets and put two industrial sized fans to blow on the top of the water from divergent directions. If you have access, you could conduct the experiment in an industrial sized freezer where you alternate the below freezing and above freezing temperatures. Final step: Start your timer and let me know how long it takes for the ice to become significantly thicker. 



Johnny b said:


> 8 tons, huh?
> Maybe that decimal point was a misprint and should have been a comma?
> 
> Reading comprehension LOL!


Thanks for finding my typo there! I do appreciate the catch. As a correction... that should have been 8,000 tons instead of 8 tons. Kinda helps prove my point though. 


Johnny b said:


> BTW, it's a research vessel staffed with scientists.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Kronprins_Haakon
> It's owned by:
> University of Tromsø (50 %)
> Norwegian Polar Institute (30 %)
> Norwegian Institute of Marine Research (20 %)


True, the ship is actually a dual purpose vessel; however, to infer that the ship is not an icebreaker staffed with only scientists is a bit misleading.

To quote the first line of your wikipedia link... 


> "*RV Kronprins Haakon* is a Norwegian icebreaking polar research vessel"


And a little further down...


> _Kronprins Haakon_ is strengthened for operation in winter ice with pressure ridges and multi-year ice, and in ambient temperatures of −35 °C (−31 °F). She is designed according to International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) _Unified Requirements for Polar Class Ships_ and her ice class, _Polar Class 3_, is intended for vessels designed for "year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multi-year ice inclusions". A capable icebreaker, _Kronprins Haakon_ can break 1 metre (3 ft) thick ice at a continuous speed of 4 knots (7.4 km/h; 4.6 mph).[13]


References to the Gilligans island sitcom aside: When considering the icebreakers expected operational area and the value of the research equipment on board, I find it hard to believe that this ship would be sent out with only scientific personnel and without a competent/professional icebreaking crew.

Hint - It is really embarrassing when your state-of-the-art icebreaker class ship becomes stuck in an ice sheet.


----------



## valis

> But, as a little experiment, try filling up your Jacuzzi with water that is just above freezing and putting a thick layer ice cubes on top. Now turn on the jets and put two industrial sized fans to blow on the top of the water from divergent directions. If you have access, you could conduct the experiment in an industrial sized freezer where you alternate the below freezing and above freezing temperatures. Final step: Start your timer and let me know how long it takes for the ice to become significantly thicker.


Just to verify; you are comparing the global climate to a hot tub? There is a bit of inaccuracy there....


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> Just to verify; you are comparing the global climate to a hot tub? There is a bit of inaccuracy there....


Oh yeah. A whole boatload of inaccuracies! (Pun intended)

However, that does make me wonder. Is there a simulated environment for testing the Global Warming Theory that goes beyond computer models that change every year (for prediction improvement, or for deliberate miscalculation - depending on the individual viewpoint )?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Correct, there is no such statement in the electroverse article; however, I do not intentionally lie as you prefer to routinely insinuate.
> 
> Noting the omission of the "causation" (as you phrased it), is fair game in criticizing the article; but, the causation here cannot by itself explain the thickened ice sheets.
> 
> Unfortunately, the analysis from those sources does not hold up well to common sense. Everyone knows that wind and ocean currents alone cannot keep ice from melting, and wind and ocean currents alone cannot add to the thickness of existing ice sheets. To accomplish this observed state, recurring below freezing temperatures are not optional, they are required.
> 
> But, as a little experiment, try filling up your Jacuzzi with water that is just above freezing and putting a thick layer ice cubes on top. Now turn on the jets and put two industrial sized fans to blow on the top of the water from divergent directions. If you have access, you could conduct the experiment in an industrial sized freezer where you alternate the below freezing and above freezing temperatures. Final step: Start your timer and let me know how long it takes for the ice to become significantly thicker.
> 
> Thanks for finding my typo there! I do appreciate the catch. As a correction... that should have been 8,000 tons instead of 8 tons. Kinda helps prove my point though.
> 
> True, the ship is actually a dual purpose vessel; however, to infer that the ship is not an icebreaker staffed with only scientists is a bit misleading.
> 
> To quote the first line of your wikipedia link...
> 
> And a little further down...
> 
> References to the Gilligans island sitcom aside: When considering the icebreakers expected operational area and the value of the research equipment on board, I find it hard to believe that this ship would be sent out with only scientific personnel and without a competent/professional icebreaking crew.
> 
> Hint - It is really embarrassing when your state-of-the-art icebreaker class ship becomes stuck in an ice sheet.





> Correct, there is no such statement in the electroverse article; however, I do not intentionally lie as you prefer to routinely insinuate.


But I keep catching you in incredible 'inaccuracies' 
You repeat obvious distortions and misrepresentations.



> Noting the omission of the "causation" (as you phrased it), is fair game in criticizing the article; but, the causation here cannot by itself explain the thickened ice sheets.


See what I mean.
You deny the source you used as an authority apparently because it doesn't fit your politics.
The issue the Kronprins Haakon encountered were ice helmets and the description given for their existence came from wind and ocean currents.
I'm not making this up.
That's from *your links that you presented* as an argument the Earth was cooling, even though I provided linkage to scientific finds that suggest other wise by a large scale.

Trumpism obviously rots the mind. 



> Unfortunately, the analysis from those sources does not hold up well to common sense.


Your's maybe 
But science does not care about politic or religion, nor do the laws that govern the universe 



> Everyone knows that wind and ocean currents alone cannot keep ice from melting,


I think you are confused.
Let me use some 'small people's' logic to help you : wind and ocean currents are herding the thin ice into piles of thicker ice (  )
( sad! )



> To accomplish this observed state, recurring below freezing temperatures are not optional, they are required.


You are only talking non sense to build a false scenario.
The air temperatures are being recorded at near all time highs. I gave you linkage to that effect. From scientific sources.

You obviously suffer from BS receptivity compounded by your political dogma( and I'm being serious )



> But, as a little experiment, try filling up your Jacuzzi with water that is just above freezing and putting a thick layer ice cubes on top. Now turn on the jets and put two industrial sized fans to blow on the top of the water from divergent directions.


Jacuzzi? 
In your scaled down experiment, you are essentially pushing ice bergs around a bathtub LOL!
 LOL!
Ice breakers tend to go around them.



> If you have access, you could conduct the experiment in an industrial sized freezer where you alternate the below freezing and above freezing temperatures. Final step: Start your timer and let me know how long it takes for the ice to become significantly thicker.


You just violated your experiment by inducing temperatures colder than the actual.
Have you ever bothered to see what arctic temps are this time of the year?

I have 

https://www.accuweather.com/en/arctic-weather
( see image below )

Don't you get tired of your BS?




> I find it hard to believe that this ship would be sent out with only scientific personnel and without a competent/professional icebreaking crew.


I suggest you reread your own two links that have caused you so much trouble.
Of course there was a crew. And there was a staff of scientists


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Just to verify; you are comparing the global climate to a hot tub? There is a bit of inaccuracy there....


Really?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Oh yeah. A whole boatload of inaccuracies! (Pun intended)
> 
> However, that does make me wonder. Is there a simulated environment for testing the Global Warming Theory that goes beyond computer models that change every year (for prediction improvement, or for deliberate miscalculation - depending on the individual viewpoint )?


It's not likely to be a Jacuzzi or a bath tub 

The reality of the theory is an attempt to explain what has been happening and project into the future. As the environment changes, new relationships are realized and their effect folded into an updated theory.

You don't seem to like it because your politics conflict with a complicated dynamic.
So you deny the results of that dynamic and as you posted above, present the deliberate miscalculations/distortions of deniers.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> Oh yeah. A whole boatload of inaccuracies! (Pun intended)
> 
> However, that does make me wonder. Is there a simulated environment for testing the Global Warming Theory that goes beyond computer models that change every year (for prediction improvement, or for deliberate miscalculation - depending on the individual viewpoint )?


You need to define more...my kneejerk reaction is yes there is, but I dont think I fully understand your question...


----------



## Johnny b

I see it as an argument to discredit modeling because a laboratory simulation isn't practical.
Because a simulation would need to express the dynamics in question ( known and yet to be discovered ), mainly energy distribution on both a planet wide scale and a solar scale, it simply seems both impractical and most likely not achievable.
Just the weather alone is a complex dynamic of energy distribution that varies from hour to hour on a planet wide-scale. Too many variables to build a physical simulation beyond one that is computer generated.

Jack painted himself into a corner. And it got messy 
He picked a time to claim the Arctic was cooling when data claims otherwise.


----------



## Chawbacon

Ok... Where to start?



Johnny b said:


> But I keep catching you in incredible 'inaccuracies'
> You repeat obvious distortions and misrepresentations.


With all due respect, I admit when I have inadvertently made an incorrect statement. Besides from those particular admissions that I have made, your claims of my making "incredible inaccuracies,... distortions and misrepresentations" are based on your opinion as opposed to actual fact. Even with this particular discussion, you cannot accept that the extent of impact from man-made Global Warming is still a theory. 


Johnny b said:


> See what I mean.
> You deny the source you used as an authority apparently because it doesn't fit your politics.
> The issue the Kronprins Haakon encountered were ice helmets and the description given for their existence came from wind and ocean currents.
> I'm not making this up.
> That's from *your links that you presented* as an argument the Earth was cooling, even though I provided linkage to scientific finds that suggest other wise by a large scale.
> 
> Trumpism obviously rots the mind.


Well, my intent was to mock the sources of this article. My apologies if I failed to use enough sarcasm to make that readily apparent.


Johnny b said:


> You are only talking non sense to build a false scenario.
> The air temperatures are being recorded at near all time highs. I gave you linkage to that effect. From scientific sources.
> 
> You obviously suffer from BS receptivity compounded by your political dogma( and I'm being serious )


Alright then. You appear to be determined to stick with that story... HIGHER global temperatures along with WINDS and OCEAN CURRENTS caused a THICKER ICE SHEET that could not be navigated by an 8000 ton icebreaker ship. Are you selling beach front property in Utah also? 


Johnny b said:


> You don't seem to like it because your politics conflict with a complicated dynamic.
> So you deny the results of that dynamic and as you posted above, present the deliberate miscalculations/distortions of deniers.


Have you considered that you may be the one accepting the "complicated dynamic" because it matches with your political beliefs? Could it be that you are actually the one accepting the "results of the dynamic" and are presenting the "deliberate miscalculations/distortions" of Global Warming believers?


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> You need to define more...my kneejerk reaction is yes there is, but I dont think I fully understand your question...


Hey Valis. No problem.

I know that there are physical simulators that are designed to measure the expected impacts of earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and meteor strikes; so I was wondering if there was some type of an equivalent system existing, or in the design phase, that would give us a better understanding of what to actually expect from the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere. As we both know, there is a wide range of cause and affect that can be linked to observation alone. I think that one observant individual noted that the increase in global temperature also aligns with the increase of Organic Food consumption (a ridiculous observation - but funny). Computer models are great; but, they can only work within the confines of the algorithms that are analyzing the data points. Algorithms by nature are built upon assumptions; so, something more physical than a computer model that would test in a controlled environment.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> I see it as an argument to discredit modeling because a laboratory simulation isn't practical.
> Because a simulation would need to express the dynamics in question ( known and yet to be discovered ), mainly energy distribution on both a planet wide scale and a solar scale, it simply seems both impractical and most likely not achievable.
> Just the weather alone is a complex dynamic of energy distribution that varies from hour to hour on a planet wide-scale. Too many variables to build a physical simulation beyond one that is computer generated.


No. My question is in earnest.

I would love for the CO2 link to Global Warming to be tested and definitively proven, or debunked. I fully understand that an environment to test for global warming would be extremely difficult; but, there certainly must be a way to start some type of testing in a controlled environment. After all, we have put a man on the moon. I am sure that there are some smart scientists out there that are working on something of this nature and I would be very interested in tracking the implementation, progress, and results of such a test.


----------



## valis

I think you are missing the point; we dont NEED algorithms as this is based on historical data. Anthropogenic caused climate change is now recognised...I mean, what more data do you need? As I have said prior and sadly will say until I die, humans HAVE changed the climate. Anyone denying it is the same as a flat earther idiot. The math is there; if you choose to deny it, well, nice talking to you and have a good day.

Same with anti vaxxers. Or 'we didnt land on the moon' idiots.

The proof is there. If one is not able to see said proof it isnt my place to point it out. I will happily lead a horse to water. If it dies of dehydration that is its own choice.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> No. My question is in earnest.
> 
> I would love for the CO2 link to Global Warming to be tested and definitively proven, or debunked. I fully understand that an environment to test for global warming would be extremely difficult; but, there certainly must be a way to start some type of testing in a controlled environment. After all, we have put a man on the moon. I am sure that there are some smart scientists out there that are working on something of this nature and I would be very interested in tracking the implementation, progress, and results of such a test.


It has been. Several zillion times. This is common knowledge. This is a spurious (at best) argument.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Ok... Where to start?
> 
> With all due respect, I admit when I have inadvertently made an incorrect statement. Besides from those particular admissions that I have made, your claims of my making "incredible inaccuracies,... distortions and misrepresentations" are based on your opinion as opposed to actual fact. Even with this particular discussion, you cannot accept that the extent of impact from man-made Global Warming is still a theory.
> 
> Well, my intent was to mock the sources of this article. My apologies if I failed to use enough sarcasm to make that readily apparent.
> 
> Alright then. You appear to be determined to stick with that story... HIGHER global temperatures along with WINDS and OCEAN CURRENTS caused a THICKER ICE SHEET that could not be navigated by an 8000 ton icebreaker ship. Are you selling beach front property in Utah also?
> 
> Have you considered that you may be the one accepting the "complicated dynamic" because it matches with your political beliefs? Could it be that you are actually the one accepting the "results of the dynamic" and are presenting the "deliberate miscalculations/distortions" of Global Warming believers?





> With all due respect, I admit when I have inadvertently made an incorrect statement. Besides from those particular admissions that I have made, your claims of my making "incredible inaccuracies,... distortions and misrepresentations" are based on your opinion as opposed to actual fact. Even with this particular discussion, you cannot accept that the extent of impact from man-made Global Warming is still a theory.


No, I've corrected you in the past. Not just this thread.
And as far as Global Warming goes, there is the factual aspect and the theory to explain the reason for it.
You present some of the silliest reasons to deny the data supporting global warming and act as if it's skepticism.
The worst was the Jacuzzi and ice cube experiment you proposed as if it had scientific relevance. Honestly, I laughed.
You claim the arctic is cooling . I post the current temperatures. I present facts that only support a warming trend in the Arctic.

And you even weasel worded replies inferring I presented facts that you did indeed refer to as authoritative sources, after finding out your sources didn't support your position after all.

Jack, you aren't discussing the topic, you are only denying it with bogus claims.



> Well, my intent was to mock the sources of this article. My apologies if I failed to use enough sarcasm to make that readily apparent.


 You failed indeed.
Here's how I would do it:
 



> Alright then. You appear to be determined to stick with that story... HIGHER global temperatures along with WINDS and OCEAN CURRENTS caused a THICKER ICE SHEET that could not be navigated by an 8000 ton icebreaker ship.


Again, you distort the scene that you presented when you posted an article from electroverse
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-18#post-9621355

And backed it up with:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-19#post-9622078


> https://dagens.klassekampen.no/2019-07-15/stanset-av-isen
> and
> https://resett.no/2019/07/15/norsk-...te-betydelig-tjukkere-ismasser-enn-forventet/


And I quote from the sources you used as authoritative:


> Here are thick one-year ice, combined with large batches of multi-year ice. In many places, wind and ocean currents have pushed the ice together into powerful helmets, and several of these are impenetrable to us, says Captain Johnny Peder Hansen.


Helmets, not 'regular ice sheets'. 'Powerful helmets' is the descriptor above

I find your sources often contradict your claims.
And you are trying to again pin your distortions on me.
Very Trumptonian, imo.



> Have you considered that you may be the one accepting the "complicated dynamic" because it matches with your political beliefs?


.... no
I simply go to the science of this issue.
You don't ( remember your 'bathtub' experiment or your let's do an experiment that ignores Arctic temperatures and see what happens in an industrial freezer? 

Come on.....that was really funny 

Jack, you deny reality in the face of gathered data.



> Could it be that you are actually the one accepting the "results of the dynamic"


Is it that obvious? 



> Could it be that you are actually the one accepting the "results of the dynamic" and are presenting the "deliberate miscalculations/distortions" of Global Warming believers?


You do realize that statement makes no sense?
The results of that dynamic is registered as weather and climate. It is what is being experienced.
What liberals claim on global warming are often distortions for political purposes, just as you seem to have political purposes for the distortions and misrepresentations posted ( which I have been pointing out )
Since no liberal lefties appear to be involved in this thread, that leaves you, as the singular manipulator/denier since Tony, the almost grand champion chess player, bowed out.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> No. My question is in earnest.
> 
> I would love for the CO2 link to Global Warming to be tested and definitively proven, or debunked. I fully understand that an environment to test for global warming would be extremely difficult; but, there certainly must be a way to start some type of testing in a controlled environment. After all, we have put a man on the moon. I am sure that there are some smart scientists out there that are working on something of this nature and I would be very interested in tracking the implementation, progress, and results of such a test.





> No. My question is in earnest.


I think not.
Your request as I presented, is impractical on a physical level.



> I would love for the CO2 link to Global Warming to be tested and definitively proven, or debunked.


What Tim said:
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-20#post-9622757

Yours is merely the tacticof a 'time waster' as a means to wear down opponents.



> After all, we have put a man on the moon.


Irrelevant to the topic.



> I am sure that there are some smart scientists out there that are working on something of this nature and I would be very interested in tracking the implementation, progress, and results of such a test.


Google is your friend. Use it and get back to us.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> I think you are missing the point; we dont NEED algorithms as this is based on historical data. Anthropogenic caused climate change is now recognised...I mean, what more data do you need? As I have said prior and sadly will say until I die, humans HAVE changed the climate. Anyone denying it is the same as a flat earther idiot. The math is there; if you choose to deny it, well, nice talking to you and have a good day.
> 
> Same with anti vaxxers. Or 'we didnt land on the moon' idiots.
> 
> The proof is there. If one is not able to see said proof it isnt my place to point it out. I will happily lead a horse to water. If it dies of dehydration that is its own choice.


:up: :up: :up:


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> It has been. Several zillion times. This is common knowledge. This is a spurious (at best) argument.


I was not attempting to make an argument (spurious or otherwise).

I am truly interested in seeing a test environment that could provide better data on this subject. The Global Warming claim is that high levels of CO2 (caused by man) in the atmosphere is causing an unprecedented rise in global temperature. There are lots of graphs online that show findings similar to the graph below; but, this graph omits Oxygen, and H20 (as a water vapor). 









When you look at the actual composition of the atmosphere, you will see that the "Greenhouse" gasses are but a fraction of the overall atmosphere.

This is from the North Carolina Climate Office
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition


> The atmosphere is composed of a mix of several different gases in differing amounts. The permanent gases whose percentages do not change from day to day are nitrogen, oxygen and argon. Nitrogen accounts for 78% of the atmosphere, oxygen 21% and argon 0.9%. *Gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, methane, and ozone are trace gases that account for about a tenth of one percent of the atmosphere.*


So even at "unprecedented" levels of CO2 and with the combined total of greenhouse gasses, we are only talking about 1/10 of 1% of the total atmosphere. I just cannot see this overall minute amount of CO2 as having the ability to drastically warm the planet to apocalyptic levels.

Granted though, further down there is this reference: 


> Greenhouse gases whose percentages vary daily, seasonally, and annually have physical and chemical properties which make them interact with solar radiation and infrared light (heat) given off from the earth to affect the energy balance of the globe. This is why scientists are watching the observed increase in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane carefully, because even though they are small in amount, they can strongly affect the global energy balance and temperature over time.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I was not attempting to make an argument (spurious or otherwise).
> 
> I am truly interested in seeing a test environment that could provide better data on this subject. The Global Warming claim is that high levels of CO2 (caused by man) in the atmosphere is causing an unprecedented rise in global temperature. There are lots of graphs online that show findings similar to the graph below; but, this graph omits Oxygen, and H20 (as a water vapor).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you look at the actual composition of the atmosphere, you will see that the "Greenhouse" gasses are but a fraction of the overall atmosphere.
> 
> This is from the North Carolina Climate Office
> https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition
> 
> So even at "unprecedented" levels of CO2 and with the combined total of greenhouse gasses, we are only talking about 1/10 of 1% of the total atmosphere. I just cannot see this overall minute amount of CO2 as having the ability to drastically warm the planet to apocalyptic levels.
> 
> Granted though, further down there is this reference:





> I just cannot see this overall minute amount of CO2 as having the ability to drastically warm the planet to apocalyptic levels.


That's simply vociferous rhetoric.
No one here has or is claiming an apocalyptic ( end of the world ) scenario.

Since you are not a scientist, nor knowledgeable on the topic, your scientific opinion has no value.
I look to the scientific community for their opinions and rationale.
You look to bloggers.
So did Tony, come to think.


----------



## valis

Dude...all I can say I have said. If you deny facts, ESTABLISHED facts, again, I cannot make you drink....


----------



## Johnny b

Facts.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/










...............









https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/










Also note at the above link is a satellite time gap visual showing the reduction of the Arctic ice extent from 1979 to 2018


----------



## Johnny b

Let the denials begin


----------



## Johnny b

Sea levels?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/









*GROUND DATA: 1870-2013*


----------



## Johnny b

Here's essentially the same graph at Wikipedia, that Tony objected to:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/


----------



## Johnny b

And then there is this:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/










Facts.
Scientists use them to derive theories.
Bloggers and deniers abuse them to prove otherwise.


----------



## Johnny b

I wonder how the denier bloggers are handling this?

* The Arctic's ice sheet is melting at a rapid rate: 11 billion tons in one day *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-how-much-arctic-melted-yesterday/1899006001/



> Scientists announced Thursday that July equaled, if not surpassed, the hottest month in recorded history. But that was not the only cause for concern.
> 
> Greenland's ice sheet melted at its most rapid rate so far this summer summer on Thursday, losing 11 billion tons of surface ice to the ocean, according to data from the Polar Portal, a website run by Danish polar research institutions, and the National Snow and Ice Data Center.


I know......they'd say.....fake news.....liberal lies......bloggers are honest, ethical, skeptical truthers. 

But anyway:



> "For those keeping track, this means the #Greenland #icesheet ends July with a net mass loss of 197 Gigatonnes since the 1st of the month," tweeted Ruth Mottram, a climate scientist with Danish Meteorological Institute - a number equivalent to around 80 million Olympic swimming pools.


I wonder what electroverse will be reporting on this news?
(  )

And then there was this:

* Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission *
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/747


----------



## valis

Again...it is the same mentality as flat earthers....the evidence is totally visible but for whatever reason there is a disconnect between belief and reality.

Ditto for moon landing and 9/11 conspiracies. You cannot fix stupid, and when there is mathematical proof that 'something occurred and this is why' and it is readily ignored, that is stupidity.

Anti-vaxxers also spring to mind.


----------



## valis

I mean, we have physical proof the Big Bang occurred, and yet my sis (who is a great person, and a fantastic mother) believes that the earth is 6k years old. Also, oxygen is a myth, as you cannot see it.

One cannot fix this.


----------



## Johnny b

Don't forget evolution versus creation science.

Once reality is denied to support dogma, be it political or religious, as you say, not much can be done.
Truth and logic become emotions.


----------



## valis

Too true, sadly. It just amazes me.


----------



## Johnny b

No climate change issues here 

* 
'They're forming like roaches.' The 6 tropical storms whirling at once have set a record
*

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...umberto-jerry-imelda-mario-lorena/2373241001/


----------



## valis

We got creamed again down here Houston way. Sone areas got 2 FEET since midnight.


----------



## Johnny b

Stay safe, Tim.


----------



## crjdriver

Nice up here Tim. Although we have already received snow in the mountains [and it is still summer]
If that is any indication, we will have a pretty cold winter. Did not even have a single day in the 100s this summer.


----------



## valis

Thanks Johnny.

And I am a bit envious of that weather there.


----------



## Johnny b

Pretty moderate for September in Ohio.
Not rained much, though.
Long range forecast shows rain next Monday, but only a 70% chance.

Good for motorcycling.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> No climate change issues here
> 
> *
> 'They're forming like roaches.' The 6 tropical storms whirling at once have set a record
> *
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...umberto-jerry-imelda-mario-lorena/2373241001/
> 
> View attachment 271911


Wait a minute here Johnny. I distinctly remember you telling me that weather is separate from climate and that weather cannot be used to support an argument against man-made climate change; BUT, here you are using weather as an argument to support man-made climate change.

So which one is it?


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> We got creamed again down here Houston way. Sone areas got 2 FEET since midnight.


Sorry to hear that you are impacted by this weather event Valis. Be safe out there.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Wait a minute here Johnny. I distinctly remember you telling me that weather is separate from climate and that weather cannot be used to support an argument against man-made climate change; BUT, here you are using weather as an argument to support man-made climate change.
> 
> So which one is it?


Really are you going to play that sophistry game like Sean does, too? 

Hint, weather is what you see when you look out the window.
Climate change is when the averages of weather measurements, change.

If the average temps rise in time, or even lower in time ( like in centuries ) that's a good example.
From just noon to dinner time, not so much


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Really are you going to play that sophistry game like Sean does, too?
> 
> Hint, weather is what you see when you look out the window.
> Climate change is when the averages of weather measurements, change.
> 
> If the average temps rise in time, or even lower in time ( like in centuries ) that's a good example.
> From just noon to dinner time, not so much


Ok... So to use your analogy... You look out the window (or in this case at satellite imagery) and see cyclones. That would be weather by your definition. 
Does it occur to you that the majority of these increased averages are also due to big jumps in technology that have provided the ability to perform significantly better data collection when it comes to cyclonic activity?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Ok... So to use your analogy... You look out the window (or in this case at satellite imagery) and see cyclones. That would be weather by your definition.
> Does it occur to you that the majority of these increased averages are also due to big jumps in technology that have provided the ability to perform significantly better data collection when it comes to cyclonic activity?


Really really bad weather 
Yep, what is seen in real time is weather.
You may not like it, but that's just the way it is. It's different from dusk to dawn and back again....changing all the time.



> Does it occur to you that the majority of these increased averages are also due to big jumps in technology that have provided the ability to perform significantly better data collection when it comes to cyclonic activity?


Averages of? Instances.
The improvement in tech can tell more about the dynamics (e.g. temp humidity wind speed) of cyclones, more correctness in forecasting, but it only takes observation to know they exist, their size and
relative power by observation.

It only takes a snapshot to compare.
The one in question obviously from a satellite.

Ever think about that? Weather's existence? wysiwyg?

You just didn't like that they were seen all at one time 

edit:
Some history of weather satellites:
https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/a-brief-history-of-weather-satellites/


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Ok... So to use your analogy... You look out the window (or in this case at satellite imagery) and see cyclones. That would be weather by your definition. ............................


Again, yes. An extreme example.
And it's not just my definition.

It's what is generally accepted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate


> On Earth, interactions between the five parts of the climate system that produce daily weather and *long-term averages of weather are called "climate"*.[1][2] Some of the meteorological variables that are commonly measured are temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, and precipitation.
> 
> Climates can be classified according to the average and the typical ranges of different variables, most commonly temperature and precipitation.
> 
> Paleoclimatology is the study of ancient climates. Since direct observations of climate are not available before the 19th century, paleoclimates are inferred from proxy variables that include non-biotic evidence such as sediments found in lake beds and ice cores, and biotic evidence such as tree rings and coral.


Why do I inherently seem to know of this and you don't?
It seems common sense to me, why not to you?
Why do words and concepts translate such bizarre sophistry in your arguments?



> ...........Does it occur to you that the majority of these increased averages are also due to big jumps in technology that have provided the ability to perform significantly better data collection when it comes to cyclonic activity?


What kind of silliness claims climate change is dependent upon the ability to scientifically collect data ? The change is observable with out data, the data you refer to describes the rate of change.
What does 'increased average' even mean to you?

So why are you constantly positioning weather as climate? You've done this before.
It's not like I haven't addressed it>
Politically motivated? One whose politics denies the change to begin with.
A proponent of Trumptonian/Lysenkian science where political theory replaces the scientific method out of necessity? The necessity of maintaining it's influence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change


> Climate change occurs when changes in Earth's climate system result in new weather patterns that remain in place for an extended period of time. This length of time can be as short as a few decades to as long as millions of years.


https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/weather_climate.html


> Weather reflects short-term conditions of the atmosphere while climate is the average daily weather for an extended period of time at a certain location.


https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-weather-and-climate


> The weather is the set of conditions in the atmosphere in one location for a limited period of time-such as throughout the day, at night, or at any particular point during the day
> ....
> Climate, however, describes the average condition of the atmosphere over a long period of time, such as across spans of 30 years or more, for a given location.


https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/difference-between-weather-and-climate


> Both weather and climate refer to local conditions (temperature, rainfall, wind strength, etc.) in a particular location or region, but the main difference between them is a matter of time. "Weather" refers to local conditions on the scale of minutes, hours, days, and even months to years: you can have a particularly wet month, warm winter, or rainy decade.[2,3] "Climate" is an average of weather conditions over 30 years or more, and can be assessed for a single location, large area, or globally.[2,3] While weather can change dramatically in a single location from day to day (for example, cold and rainy one day, followed by hot, dry conditions the next day), climate generally changes less quickly because it represents the average of weather conditions over a longer period of time


Jack, you simply hate reality 
Thus you are out of step with it 

Or you could just go over and look out the window to see what's going on. lol!


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> What kind of silliness claims climate change is dependent upon the ability to scientifically collect data ? The change is observable with out data, the data you refer to describes the rate of change.
> What does 'increased average' even mean to you?
> 
> So why are you constantly positioning weather as climate? You've done this before.
> It's not like I haven't addressed it>
> Politically motivated? One whose politics denies the change to begin with.
> A proponent of Trumptonian/Lysenkian science where political theory replaces the scientific method out of necessity? The necessity of maintaining it's influence.


I have never said that climate does not change; however, man is not changing the overall temperature of the earth to any significant degree.


Johnny b said:


> Jack, you simply hate reality
> Thus you are out of step with it
> 
> Or you could just go over and look out the window to see what's going on. lol!


Nah... I love reality; but, not reality TV, nor Reality Fantasy science projects. But watch out ! That .001% of the total atmosphere is going to melt the polar ice caps within 10 years!


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I have never said that climate does not change; however, man is not changing the overall temperature of the earth to any significant degree.
> 
> Nah... I love reality; but, not reality TV, nor Reality Fantasy science projects. But watch out ! That .001% of the total atmosphere is going to melt the polar ice caps within 10 years!


See what I mean about your habit of silly denial? 
The fact that man does influence accumulative climate change is the issue.
It's measurable.
You deny both the influence and the result.
The polar ice caps continue to speed up in melting and the oceans continue to rise.
This has been discussed in this thread, and yet you deny it.
Your English bud couldn't face the reality and look how unhinged he became 
Please seek help. 

Your rationale for denial is just as illogical as the left's exaggeration of the situation.


As far as the weather goes, just look out your window lol!


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> The fact that man does influence accumulative climate change is the issue.
> It's measurable.
> You deny both the influence and the result.
> The polar ice caps continue to speed up in melting and the oceans continue to rise.
> This has been discussed in this thread, and yet you deny it.


You are correct! Short of popping off nuclear weapons, or deliberately creating smog like conditions around the world, with the express intent of blocking out sunlight, I adamantly deny that man has the ability to significantly effect the overall temperature/climate of the planet.

At the height of the last ice-age, ocean levels were 300 feet lower than they are today and the oceans have been gradually rising since that point in time; but, here you want me to believe that man is the primary culprit behind the oceans possibly rising another 10 feet due to greenhouse gasses (.001% of the total atmosphere).

The Cli-Fy (what I am calling Climate Fantasy  Not to be confused with Cli-fi (Climate-fiction)) scientists have found a real affect (gradually rising sea levels); but, have lied by omission for the last 50 years by not providing the public with a full data set of information! Clearly, the common sense source of general global warming is due to a combination of global tilt changes, orbital variances, solar activity shifts, magnetic field fluctuations, and the lack of major volcanic eruptions in our current recorded history.


----------



## Chawbacon




----------



## SeanLaurence

<sarcasm>Well, if Scott Adams suggests that client scientists are fraudster's it must be true. </sarcasm>

Seriously though, Scott lives on the right wing side of the political spectrum, so I am not surprised that he denies the science. I do enjoy his cartoons though.
Those that deny that climate change is human caused are missing two important points:
When climate changes, whether it be through human or natural means, it disrupts the natural systems that we as a species rely on for our survival. The earth will keep spinning regardless. so "Save the planet" really means "Save our own sorry asses" 
Mitigating climate change creates positive economic activity. Installing renewable energy sources replaces coal fired plants that are ready to be retired anyway. And we all like clean air right?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> You are correct! Short of popping off nuclear weapons, or deliberately creating smog like conditions around the world, with the express intent of blocking out sunlight, I adamantly deny that man has the ability to significantly effect the overall temperature/climate of the planet.
> 
> At the height of the last ice-age, ocean levels were 300 feet lower than they are today and the oceans have been gradually rising since that point in time; but, here you want me to believe that man is the primary culprit behind the oceans possibly rising another 10 feet due to greenhouse gasses (.001% of the total atmosphere).
> 
> The Cli-Fy (what I am calling Climate Fantasy  Not to be confused with Cli-fi (Climate-fiction)) scientists have found a real affect (gradually rising sea levels); but, have lied by omission for the last 50 years by not providing the public with a full data set of information! Clearly, the common sense source of general global warming is due to a combination of global tilt changes, orbital variances, solar activity shifts, magnetic field fluctuations, and the lack of major volcanic eruptions in our current recorded history.





> You are correct!


I've known that for a long time.



> I adamantly deny that man has the ability to significantly effect the overall temperature/climate of the planet.


You adamantly deny a lot of 'things' lol!
Your denying of science and reality seems a constant trait of you, Jack 
You simply do not like the data that contradicts your politics.
Don't feel badly, it took the Ruskies ( Communists at the time ) a long time to discredit Lysenko. Politics and science just don't mix well. Same goes for likes of socialists, like AOC, Bernie and Warren. They want control of society just as much as the extreme rightwingers do.



> At the height of the last ice-age, ocean levels were 300 feet lower than they are today and the oceans have been gradually rising since that point in time; but, here you want me to believe that man is the primary culprit behind the oceans possibly rising another 10 feet due to greenhouse gasses


Yep 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Past_changes_in_sea_level



> Understanding past sea level is important for the analysis of current and future changes. In the recent geological past, changes in land ice and thermal expansion from increased temperatures are the dominant reasons of sea level rise. The last time the Earth was 2 °C (3.6 °F) warmer than pre-industrial temperatures, sea levels were at least 5 metres (16 ft) higher than now:[19] this was when warming because of changes in the amount of sunlight due to slow changes in the Earth's orbit caused the last interglacial. The warming was sustained over a period of thousands of years and the magnitude of the rise in sea level implies a large contribution from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.[20]:1139
> 
> Since the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago, the sea level has risen by more than 125 metres (410 ft), with rates varying from less than a mm/year to 40+ mm/year, as a result of melting ice sheets over Canada and Eurasia. Rapid disintegration of ice sheets led to so called 'meltwater pulses', periods during which sea level rose rapidly. The rate of rise started to slow down about 8,200 years before present; the sea level was almost constant in the last 2,500 years, before the recent rising trend that started at the end of the 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th.


Look that last sentence again:


> The rate of rise started to slow down about 8,200 years before present; *the sea level was almost constant in the last 2,500 years, before the recent rising trend that started at the end of the 19th century or in the beginning of the 20th.* [/b]


It's a bit more complicated than small minds perceive.
You cherry picked dates to suit your argument.

https://ocean.si.edu/through-time/ancient-seas/sea-level-rise



> Over the past 20,000 years or so, sea level has climbed some 400 feet (120 meters). As the climate warmed as part of a natural cycle, ice melted and glaciers retreated until ice sheets remained only at the poles and at the peaks of mountains. Early on, the sea rose rapidly, sometimes at rates greater than 10 feet (3 meters) per century, and then continued to grow in spurts of rapid sea level rise until about 7,000 years ago. Then, the climate stabilized and sea level rise slowed, holding largely steady for most of the last 2,000 years, based on records from corals and sediment cores. Now, however, sea level is on the rise again, rising faster now than it has in the past 6,000 years.
> 
> ............
> The climate likely started warming as a part of a natural cycle, but the accelerated warming in the last two hundred years or so is due to a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. *The resulting rise in sea level is likely twice what we would have seen without the increase in greenhouse gasses due to human activities.*


You posted:


> The Cli-Fy (what I am calling Climate Fantasy  Not to be confused with Cli-fi (Climate-fiction)) scientists have found a real affect (gradually rising sea levels);


And I'm calling the above a case of BS Receptivity.



> but, have lied by omission for the last 50 years by not providing the public with a full data set of information!


I see the denial going very deep.



> Clearly, the common sense source of general global warming is due to a combination of global tilt changes, orbital variances, solar activity shifts, magnetic field fluctuations, and the lack of major volcanic eruptions in our current recorded history.


And man's influence.
I've just pointed out that you are misinformed in regard to reality.
You generalize away important events that led to the current status of Earth.



> I adamantly deny...


I think I've addressed that before 

Will you ever accept what I posted? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


>




Really.........., resorting to comic strips to make an argument lol!

Was funny though


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .......
> .............
> When climate changes, whether it be through human or natural means, it disrupts the natural systems that we as a species rely on for our survival. ...................


I think you mean well, but....

Climate change is part of the 'natural systems' that support life.
Historical climate changes forced evolution to follow the paths we have seen in the fossil records and how present species came to be. They should and will change in time, so long as that time is lengthy enough to accomplish it.
The disruption we see now has been enhanced, sped up. What has evolved to what we see today often took millions of years to adjust ( evolve ) and is now experiencing essentially a 'time dilation' that doesn't favor rapid evolution. It can be seen in extinction rates. The Earth is in a new period of extinctions.

What is natural biological evolution as opposed to unnatural?
The first is through selective gene adaptation, survival and success being the motivators.
The second is intellect, decisions made to alter the environment for survival and success.

As you can see, the 'intelligences' currently making major decisions about our environment are about as smart as a box of rocks.

Mankind has the ability to reason. But too often doesn't.

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/unnatural_selection/
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/9987
https://www.nature.com/articles/457803a
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129638953

The natural biological systems aren't very natural any more.
Add man induced changes and it only makes it harder to successfully survive in order to evolve, thus extinction becomes more common in the biosphere.

Mankind may be able to think his/her way out of this dilemma for itself, but why keep making reality worse than it has to be?


----------



## Chawbacon

SeanLaurence said:


> <sarcasm>Well, if Scott Adams suggests that client scientists are fraudster's it must be true. </sarcasm>
> 
> Seriously though, Scott lives on the right wing side of the political spectrum, so I am not surprised that he denies the science. I do enjoy his cartoons though.
> Those that deny that climate change is human caused are missing two important points:
> When climate changes, whether it be through human or natural means, it disrupts the natural systems that we as a species rely on for our survival. The earth will keep spinning regardless. so "Save the planet" really means "Save our own sorry *****"
> Mitigating climate change creates positive economic activity. Installing renewable energy sources replaces coal fired plants that are ready to be retired anyway. And we all like clean air right?


I agree with most of what you have stated above. We definitely have a responsibility to be good stewards of our planet. That whole kill the host, kill the parasite concept makes a lot of sense.

The potential concern that I see though, is around the statement of "Mitigating climate change creates positive economic activity." This is true to a point; because, economic competition tends to be an overall positive for any economy. What we have to consider though is that here in the States we witnessed the implementation of over-burdensome regulations under President Obama that pretty much drove a wooden steak through the heart of the coal industry. It is my understanding that the U.S. was already leading the world in clean coal initiatives; so it seems to me that additional regulations on the coal industry (that practically made coal production a net profit loss) were unnecessary and unwise. Don't misunderstand my intent here, I would love to see renewable energy sources that can actually produce the level of energy required to meet the needs of the regional demand; however, the solutions should also be economically viable.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> You adamantly deny a lot of 'things' lol!... (Abbreviated for brevity.)


You know what Johnny... Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I should become hyper-sensitive to any suggestion that CO2 generated by human means is NOT causing an increased rate of global warming.

After all, what if those pesky greenhouse gasses should (GASP!) double? OMG! (GASP! GASP!) They would rise to (GASP! GASP! GASP!) .002% of the total atmosphere! (GASP! GASP! GASP! GASP!) Help me! I think that I might be hyperventilating! Where is a bag made from recycled paper when I need one?!?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> You know what Johnny... Perhaps you are right. Perhaps I should become hyper-sensitive to any suggestion that CO2 generated by human means is NOT causing an increased rate of global warming.
> 
> After all, what if those pesky greenhouse gasses should (GASP!) double? OMG! (GASP! GASP!) They would rise to (GASP! GASP! GASP!) .002% of the total atmosphere! (GASP! GASP! GASP! GASP!) Help me! I think that I might be hyperventilating! Where is a bag made from recycled paper when I need one?!?


I'd settle for you being honest about the scientific aspects. 
I noticed in your previous post you acted as if you were trying to be reasonable.


Not seeing it. lol!


----------



## valis

I stopped reading after the 'humans have made no measurable change' comment. It has been proven, and is accepted as scientific proof, that we have influenced the climate. 4% of CO2 emissions are directly from anthropogenic interests. And if one thinks 4% is minor, try removing 4% of your brain. In any complex system, 4% is huge.

I mean, imagine randomly removing 4% of your car engine. Is it gonna start?

Bottom line, AGAIN, is that we are responsible for this. And now we are just along for the ride. Not worth debating. The time to fix it was decades ago and we have passed the tipping point. So whatever.

I am so sick of this. 6 of Houstons rainiest days (for whatever reason, I live there) in recorded history have occurred since 2001. But nope, no climate change.

I dont know what to say. I could call the sky blue and you will say that is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> I stopped reading after the 'humans have made no measurable change' comment. It has been proven, and is accepted as scientific proof, that we have influenced the climate. 4% of CO2 emissions are directly from anthropogenic interests. And if one thinks 4% is minor, try removing 4% of your brain. In any complex system, 4% is huge.


OK... I can accept that 4% of C02 emissions are caused by anthropogenic interests. That means we are talking about 4% of 82% of .001% of the total atmosphere (yeah, I know that we are not supposed to take a percent of a percent or the results will be a little bit off ). Anyways, that would put that 4% at somewhere around .0000382% of the total atmosphere. Sorry if this is off by a zero one way or the other. Doing this on the fly here 


valis said:


> I dont know what to say. I could call the sky blue and you will say that is a matter of opinion.


Well.. I am not color blind, so I have to agree with you.


----------



## valis

Nothing personal, but I am done here. You dont get it and apparently never will.

I am going to go explain Euclidean geometry to my son's dog. It will be FAR less stressful.

Thanks,

v


----------



## SeanLaurence

Chawbacon,
Neither you or I are qualified climate scientists. The best we can do is seek out the conclusions made by those more qualified than ourselves. To conclude that human activity caused greenhouse gas emissions are not significant enough to change the climate on your part is ultimately just a guess based on your gut feeling on the matter. Or have you been running climate simulations on your home computer and not been reporting back to us?

What I have to ask myself when faced with a climate change denier, such as yourself is: Why are you so fixed in your position? Are you invested in Oil or Coal? Do you love your pickup truck and can't envision the inconvenience of having to live with an electric vehicle? Do all your friends see things the same way as you and so you don't want to be excluded from your social group?

I had a chuckle when you wrote how "Obama drove a wooden *steak* through the heart of the coal industry"
I think you meant 'stake'
That being said, your over-regulation argument is, at best, only part of the story. You can thank Buffet for his advocacy of natural gas for the death of coal due to market forces.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2019/01/16/why-theres-no-bringing-coal-back/

I happen to live in a part of the world that is powered by Hydro and look forward to a day when LFTR technology is up and running. You can't swing a cat in this town without hitting a Testla.


----------



## Cookiegal

SeanLaurence said:


> I think you meant 'stake'


Maybe not if it was overcooked.


----------



## Chawbacon

Nope. I am not a Cli-Fy scientist by any means. We are talking good ole common sense here. There is no way that greenhouse gases, being such a minuscule amount of our atmosphere (.001%) could melt the polar ice caps. This concept is just beyond reasonable. 

However, I do have an understanding of how heat transfer works. The basic principle is that heat rises and will dissipate upon contact with a cooler surface. Think of your house on a cold day... The hot air from your furnace rises to the top of the room first and the bottom of the room gradually becomes warmer because there is a roof on your house that contains the heat. Open a window and the heat escapes very quickly, right? Now let's think about greenhouse gasses and the atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses retain radiation and heat while they move to the upper atmosphere, that heat is released at the cold temperatures of the upper atmosphere and at night when the sun is not shining directly on the greenhouse gases in question. Now keep in mind that Earth does not have a roof. Earth is surrounded by a cold outer shell called space. Admittedly, if Earth was surrounded by a plate of glass then, ok, I would probably buy the snake oil that the Cli-Fy scientists are selling. See, very simple to understand.


----------



## Chawbacon

Steak... Stake... Yeah, I missed that one on the proofread. 

SeanLaurence and CookieGal…. Thanks for the laughs!


----------



## valis

CB, you are woefully derelict in your knowledge. Please research the THC and get back to me.


----------



## valis

Cookiegal said:


> Maybe not if it was overcooked.


And I am fairly certain SeanLaurence didnt mean client scientists.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> OK... I can accept that 4% of C02 emissions are caused by anthropogenic interests. That means we are talking about 4% of 82% of .001% of the total atmosphere (yeah, I know that we are not supposed to take a percent of a percent or the results will be a little bit off ). Anyways, that would put that 4% at somewhere around .0000382% of the total atmosphere. Sorry if this is off by a zero one way or the other. Doing this on the fly here
> 
> Well.. I am not color blind, so I have to agree with you.


Do you understand your math? 

Where did you get those numbers?

CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere and it's a greenhouse gas.
And it's been increasing from man's influence.

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide









As you can see in the graph, concentrations have increased not only above previous highs, but by a factor of about 33% ( 300 to 400 ) 
It did it in a very short time. Less than 2000 years and mostly in the last 200 years.

From a chemical pov, anytime the ratio of reactants is altered, so is the rate of reaction.

Even the small amount you grumble about, the actual change was about a 33% increase of CO2.

Sophistry and fallacies is all you still offer, Jack.


----------



## valis

I wrote this when my son was turning 7, and wrote it entirely for his understanding. I hope it helps here.

https://timothypierce.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/global-warming-redux/


----------



## valis

Also, HUGE kudos to Greta Thunberg. Way to go and please keep it up.


----------



## SeanLaurence

valis said:


> And I am fairly certain SeanLaurence didnt mean client scientists.


Oops


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .............
> That being said, your over-regulation argument is, at best, only part of the story. You can thank Buffet for his advocacy of natural gas for the death of coal due to market forces.
> 
> https://www.brookings.edu/blog/planetpolicy/2019/01/16/why-theres-no-bringing-coal-back/
> ..............................


Jack is well aware that natural gas is replacing coal for the reasons you mentioned.
He's been told before and will likely be told again


----------



## Johnny b

The following is not an argument to ignore global warming because of it's long term irreversible nature, it's because if no attempts are made, we'll experience a greater impact of an irreversible nature.
It's also not an argument for AOC's stupid New Green Deal. With her $90+ Trillion dollar 10 year program, not only is little accomplished, it bankrupts the US and makes it impossible to financially maintain a long term viable plan to reduce anthropogenic CO2 levels.

Two articles:



> If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change?


http://theconversation.com/if-we-st...-right-now-would-we-stop-climate-change-78882
(short answer, no. )

* Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions *
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.long

(abstract) :


> This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.


In other words, anybody believing AOC can clean up CO2 and return the environment to a condition of the past, all in a decade, has been hoodwinked by a BS artist bent on destructive socialism.

Mitigation, reducing the severity with long term financially affordable approaches is, realistically, the only sane path.
A lot to debate about, but it's obvious neither socialists like AOC nor the rightwing climate deniers have intelligent policies.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Do you understand your math?
> 
> Where did you get those numbers?


Well... From here... Posted previously by the way....


Chawbacon said:


> This is from the North Carolina Climate Office
> https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition


But I did some additional looking around and it appears that you are potentially correct. CO2 is commonly reported as approximately .04% of the total atmosphere, with 99% of the atmosphere being composed of Oxygen, H20, and Nitrogen. 


Johnny b said:


> CO2 is .04% of the atmosphere and it's a greenhouse gas.
> And it's been increasing from man's influence.


This .04% is still an infinitesimal part of our overall atmosphere. Short of bogus, make believe fantasy science math equations, there is no way that .04% of the total atmosphere can melt a polar ice cap, much less both of them. But, OK, let us say that we can successfully reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere... What gas is expected to take it's place? H2O? Nitrogen? Oxygen? Some other trace gas? Luau music played Iron Maiden? 


Johnny b said:


> Jack is well aware that natural gas is replacing coal for the reasons you mentioned.
> He's been told before and will likely be told again


Sigh... I have no problem with natural gas; however, my point was that over-regulation (created by the Obama administration) in the name of CO2 reduction was a demonstrable and direct reason for the closure of many coal mines in the United States. Natural gas supplanting coal is fine by me, as long as that is accomplished via free market forces and not the government tipping the scale for some made up climate hoax.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Well... From here... Posted previously by the way....
> 
> But I did some additional looking around and it appears that you are potentially correct. CO2 is commonly reported as approximately .04% of the total atmosphere, with 99% of the atmosphere being composed of Oxygen, H20, and Nitrogen.
> 
> This .04% is still an infinitesimal part of our overall atmosphere. Short of bogus, make believe fantasy science math equations, there is no way that .04% of the total atmosphere can melt a polar ice cap, much less both of them. But, OK, let us say that we can successfully reduce the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere... What gas is expected to take it's place? H2O? Nitrogen? Oxygen? Some other trace gas? Luau music played Iron Maiden?
> 
> Sigh... I have no problem with natural gas; however, my point was that over-regulation (created by the Obama administration) in the name of CO2 reduction was a demonstrable and direct reason for the closure of many coal mines in the United States. Natural gas supplanting coal is fine by me, as long as that is accomplished via free market forces and not the government tipping the scale for some made up climate hoax.





> But I did some additional looking around and it appears that you are potentially correct. CO2 is commonly reported as approximately .04% of the total atmosphere,


No, not 'potentially. I am correct with that stat and have no intention of fabricating a BS scenario.



> there is no way that .04% of the total atmosphere can melt a polar ice cap, much less both of them.


Indeed.
Scientists are not claiming your silly fabrication.
CO2 is but one of the climate forcings that as an aggregate, alter climate. 
Do you understand the term 'forcing'?
If you don't, here's an informative link:
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing
They do vary naturally and the results can be seen on a geological time frame.
But when the influence of man's activities increases the CO2 in the atmosphere, it adds additional energy into that natural total.

You deny it. Data shows it happening.
So the poles and glaciers melt a bit faster than normal. And that is measurable.



> my point was that over-regulation (created by the Obama administration) in the name of CO2 reduction was a demonstrable and direct reason for the closure of many coal mines in the United States.


I've already addressed your fallacy from a business perspective.
Coal is on the way out as a fuel for utilities and nothing Trump can do will turn it around. It's an outdated, inefficient technology.
Consumption continues to decline. Mines continue to be closed. Even though Trump replaced Obama's CPP regs.

BTW Obama's Clean Power Plan was never enacted.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...wer-plant-rule-in-boost-to-coal-idUSKCN1TK12V


> Obama's Clean Power Plan, by contrast, had aimed to slash power plant carbon emissions by more than a third from 2005 levels by 2030 by pushing utilities to drop coal in favor of cleaner fuels like natural gas, solar and wind.
> 
> That regulation was never enacted because of lawsuits by Republican states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan#Court_challenge

Your argument has no value


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Indeed.
> Scientists are not claiming your silly fabrication.
> CO2 is but one of the climate forcings that as an aggregate, alter climate.
> Do you understand the term 'forcing'?
> If you don't, here's an informative link:
> https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing
> They do vary naturally and the results can be seen on a geological time frame.
> But when the influence of man's activities increases the CO2 in the atmosphere, it adds additional energy into that natural total.
> 
> You deny it. Data shows it happening.
> So the poles and glaciers melt a bit faster than normal. And that is measurable.


Yes I deny it! You have a theory, not proof. You have seen an affect (Climate Change), and you see a potential cause (the rise of man produced CO2); but this is only an observation; because, these Climate Fantasy Scientists are trying to invent math, in order to keep their grants from the IPCC. 
But you go ahead and keep believing that nonsense, after all what should happen if that Man Made CO2 should double???
WATCH OUT .08% IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER. 
Let me know when the sky stop falling, will ya?


Johnny b said:


> I've already addressed your fallacy from a business perspective.
> Coal is on the way out as a fuel for utilities and nothing Trump can do will turn it around. It's an outdated, inefficient technology.
> Consumption continues to decline. Mines continue to be closed. Even though Trump replaced Obama's CPP regs.
> 
> BTW Obama's Clean Power Plan was never enacted.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...wer-plant-rule-in-boost-to-coal-idUSKCN1TK12V


And you missed the obvious even within your quote from the article.

"Obama's Clean Power Plan, by contrast, had aimed to slash power plant carbon emissions by more than a third from 2005 levels by 2030 by pushing utilities to drop coal in favor of cleaner fuels like natural gas, solar and wind. "

Most businesses in the industry would not have ran away from coal investments, if not for the projected financial impact due to the looming regulations. But you are probably right about coal at this point, I also doubt that coal will make a significant recovery.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Yes I deny it! You have a theory, not proof. You have seen an affect (Climate Change), and you see a potential cause (the rise of man produced CO2); but this is only an observation; because, these Climate Fantasy Scientists are trying to invent math, in order to keep their grants from the IPCC.
> But you go ahead and keep believing that nonsense, after all what should happen if that Man Made CO2 should double???
> WATCH OUT .08% IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
> Let me know when the sky stop falling, will ya?
> 
> And you missed the obvious even within your quote from the article.
> 
> "Obama's Clean Power Plan, by contrast, had aimed to slash power plant carbon emissions by more than a third from 2005 levels by 2030 by pushing utilities to drop coal in favor of cleaner fuels like natural gas, solar and wind. "
> 
> Most businesses in the industry would not have ran away from coal investments, if not for the projected financial impact due to the looming regulations. But you are probably right about coal at this point, I also doubt that coal will make a significant recovery.





> Yes I deny it!


At least we agree on something 



> You have a theory, not proof.


There is evidence supporting that theory and no other viable theory that explains that observation.
Science simply does not care what political party a denier belongs to.
Neither the radical right nor the radical left.



> these Climate Fantasy Scientists are trying to invent math, in order to keep their grants from the IPCC.


Oh my!
Sounds a lot like a spiel from InfoWars and Alex Jones.
'Invent math'?
Is that like this past post of yours?


> OK... I can accept that 4% of C02 emissions are caused by anthropogenic interests. That means we are talking about 4% of 82% of .001% of the total atmosphere (yeah, I know that we are not supposed to take a percent of a percent or the results will be a little bit off ). Anyways, that would put that 4% at somewhere around .0000382% of the total atmosphere. Sorry if this is off by a zero one way or the other. Doing this on the fly here


Now that was an invention 
No wonder you hate math and the people that use it lol!



> But you go ahead and keep believing that nonsense, after all what should happen if that Man Made CO2 should double???
> WATCH OUT .08% IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
> Let me know when the sky stop falling, will ya?


Neither you nor I will be here when that happens, or are you counting on that ? 

To the chart, again ( sigh! )










There is about a 30+% increase over previous highs that occurred in the last several hundred years. Projecting that, roughly, there would be a doubling of that increase within the next 200 years.
You will never see that 'sky fall'. But those alive will if denier mentality persists.



> And you missed the obvious even within your quote from the article.
> 
> "Obama's Clean Power Plan, by contrast, had aimed to slash power plant carbon emissions by more than a third from 2005 levels by 2030 by pushing utilities to drop coal in favor of cleaner fuels like natural gas, solar and wind. "


And you conveniently ignore that Obama's CPP was never implemented.
You conveniently ignore facts which do not support your political position.



> Most businesses in the industry would not have ran away from coal investments, if not for the projected financial impact due to the looming regulations.


You have nothing but political propaganda to back that claim.
As Obama's CPP was never implemented, today's realization that coal fired utilities are more costly to run is the measuring stick, not the 'If Game' you play.
Financial endeavors the scale of building generators involves more than months, more than several years of planning and it's prudent to wait and see what legislation is enacted and how it applies before investing millions on speculation.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> There is evidence supporting that theory and no other viable theory that explains that observation.
> Science simply does not care what political party a denier belongs to.
> Neither the radical right nor the radical left.


Hmmm.... So you are saying that the distance of the Earth from the Sun, the tilt of the Earth, solar activity variations, and the fluctuating magnetic field around the Earth have no significant bearing on the temperature of the Earth.  OK???... Go ahead and stand behind that Fantasy Math being peddled by the man-made global warming believers.


Johnny b said:


> Oh my!
> Sounds a lot like a spiel from InfoWars and Alex Jones.
> 'Invent math'?
> Is that like this past post of yours?
> Now that was an invention
> No wonder you hate math and the people that use it lol!


After pondering this for a moment, the math that I originally posted was slightly off, but not by much really. You have stated previously, that man is responsible for 4% of CO2 within the atmosphere... works for me. We know that all of the CO2 put together is approximately .04% of the total atmosphere. So that means that man made carbon dioxide is approximately .001% of the total atmosphere (going by your numbers). Yeah.... Still not buying that man made CO2 is going to melt the ice caps. 


Johnny b said:


> And you conveniently ignore that Obama's CPP was never implemented.
> You conveniently ignore facts which do not support your political position.


I fully understand that CPP was never implemented; however, there were many regulations put in place by the EPA under Obama's watch that were very detrimental to the coal industry. Here is an example: https://www.newsweek.com/epa-relax-...se-levels-toxic-metals-water-supplies-1469151
The nuance here is that the threat of the CPP (in combination with low natural gas prices and other Obama era regulations) also was viewed by some as the cause of some coal producers filing bankruptcy: https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/28/the-stunning-effects-of-obamas-war-on-coal-in-one-chart/
So, this is nowhere near as clear-cut as you have indicated previously.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hmmm.... So you are saying that the distance of the Earth from the Sun, the tilt of the Earth, solar activity variations, and the fluctuating magnetic field around the Earth have no significant bearing on the temperature of the Earth.  OK???... Go ahead and stand behind that Fantasy Math being peddled by the man-made global warming believers.
> 
> After pondering this for a moment, the math that I originally posted was slightly off, but not by much really. You have stated previously, that man is responsible for 4% of CO2 within the atmosphere... works for me. We know that all of the CO2 put together is approximately .04% of the total atmosphere. So that means that man made carbon dioxide is approximately .001% of the total atmosphere (going by your numbers). Yeah.... Still not buying that man made CO2 is going to melt the ice caps.
> 
> I fully understand that CPP was never implemented; however, there were many regulations put in place by the EPA under Obama's watch that were very detrimental to the coal industry. Here is an example: https://www.newsweek.com/epa-relax-...se-levels-toxic-metals-water-supplies-1469151
> The nuance here is that the threat of the CPP (in combination with low natural gas prices and other Obama era regulations) also was viewed by some as the cause of some coal producers filing bankruptcy: https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/28/the-stunning-effects-of-obamas-war-on-coal-in-one-chart/
> So, this is nowhere near as clear-cut as you have indicated previously.





> Hmmm.... So you are saying that the distance of the Earth from the Sun, the tilt of the Earth, solar activity variations, and the fluctuating magnetic field around the Earth have no significant bearing on the temperature of the Earth.  OK???... Go ahead and stand behind that Fantasy Math being peddled by the man-made global warming believers.


I see you didn't seem to understand the concept of 'forcings' or did you kick off your post an intentional misrepresentation of what I post.?
Why do you bother to even discuss what you don't understand?
Do you really think the Laws of Nature are bounded by political theory?

You should read articles like these for an understanding of the terminology I've been using:
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/13
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/what-are-climate-forcings/54094

You'll notice that energy from the sun is the biggest factor. The biggest 'forcing'.

Jack, it's truly difficult explaining these scientific concepts to someone that has no interest beyond politics and intentionally maintains ignorance on the topic, as you do.



> Still not buying that man made CO2 is going to melt the ice caps.


So?
The issue isn't what you or I 'believe', the issue relates to the 'why' and 'how' of what is being observed. 
It's the sum total of 'forcings' that matter.
There is a point where the sum of them sway the balance of stability causing either a cooling or a warming result. 
As 'forcings' have changed through out the geological past, so have ice ages come and gone periodically.
But you appear too intellectually challenged to consider the science of the situation.
You appear to rely on the politics of the day.
Many others do, liberals also, just from a different pov.



> there were many regulations put in place by the EPA under Obama's watch that were very detrimental to the coal industry. Here is an example: https://www.newsweek.com/epa-relax-...se-levels-toxic-metals-water-supplies-1469151


Did you read the article, or only posting a google search result because of it's title?
Look at this from your link:


> Two sources familiar with the plans told The New York Times that changes to the rules due in November are expected to roll back limits on the "the leaching of dangerous heavy metals like arsenic, lead and mercury."


In what way are those toxic metal beneficial to the health of our population other than keeping coal miners at work and making profits for the coal industry?

Talk about pay to play. 
* A Coal Giant Gave $1 Million to Donald Trump's Super PAC As It Sought Help From Trump *
https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-coa...mps-super-pac-as-it-sought-a-federal-lifeline

* Oil, gas and coal interests filling Donald Trump's 'swamp' with cash *
https://publicintegrity.org/federal...erests-filling-donald-trumps-swamp-with-cash/

I remember you posting you had concerns about the environment, clean air and water.
It appears to have stopped with the issue of sagging coal profits.
Again, a political position in alignment with Trumpism.



> The nuance here is.....


Your position continues to be political.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> I see you didn't seem to understand the concept of 'forcings' or did you kick off your post an intentional misrepresentation of what I post.?
> Why do you bother to even discuss what you don't understand?
> Do you really think the Laws of Nature are bounded by political theory?
> 
> You should read articles like these for an understanding of the terminology I've been using:
> https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/13
> https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing
> https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/what-are-climate-forcings/54094
> 
> You'll notice that energy from the sun is the biggest factor. The biggest 'forcing'.
> 
> Jack, it's truly difficult explaining these scientific concepts to someone that has no interest beyond politics and intentionally maintains ignorance on the topic, as you do.


I have read and understand the premise of the theory behind forcing as related to CO2 and global warming. The problem with the forcing theory is that it is not supported by basic math. For instance, the weight of air is measured as SG 1.000 and the weight of CO2 is measured at SG 1.5189. This means that CO2 is a heavier gas than AIR. Also, the specific heat of Air is measured as SH 1.000 and the specific heat of CO2 is measured at SH .008. This means that CO2 heats and cools faster than Air. Put these two mathematical facts together and we can understand that CO2 does not mix well with air; however, CO2 will heat faster than air and rise within the atmosphere, then the CO2 will cool faster than Air as it rises and then rapidly fall towards the lower atmosphere. This is the process through which gasses retain heat, they do NOT trap heat. Once CO2 cools and falls towards the planet, any greenhouse affect that it once had is now non-existent. To believe the CO2 forcing theory you would first have to disprove gravity and it's affects on all gasses. 


Johnny b said:


> Did you read the article, or only posting a google search result because of it's title?
> Look at this from your link:
> In what way are those toxic metal beneficial to the health of our population other than keeping coal miners at work and making profits for the coal industry?
> 
> Talk about pay to play.
> * A Coal Giant Gave $1 Million to Donald Trump's Super PAC As It Sought Help From Trump *
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-coa...mps-super-pac-as-it-sought-a-federal-lifeline
> 
> * Oil, gas and coal interests filling Donald Trump's 'swamp' with cash *
> https://publicintegrity.org/federal...erests-filling-donald-trumps-swamp-with-cash/
> 
> I remember you posting you had concerns about the environment, clean air and water.
> It appears to have stopped with the issue of sagging coal profits.
> Again, a political position in alignment with Trumpism.


Of course I read the article; however, the topic that we are discussing is the affect of Obama era regulations on the coal industry, NOT potential pollution being emitted into the environment. Furthermore, I do not appreciate your deliberate slander that I would ignore our responsibility to be good stewards of the planet based upon a political agenda. Personally, I do not agree with rolling back this particular regulation; because, maintaining retention areas for coal ash is just plain common sense. However, I have the intellect to compartmentalize discussion topics without poisoning the apple and I would ask for you to please do the same.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I have read and understand the premise of the theory behind forcing as related to CO2 and global warming. The problem with the forcing theory is that it is not supported by basic math. For instance, the weight of air is measured as SG 1.000 and the weight of CO2 is measured at SG 1.5189. This means that CO2 is a heavier gas than AIR. Also, the specific heat of Air is measured as SH 1.000 and the specific heat of CO2 is measured at SH .008. This means that CO2 heats and cools faster than Air. Put these two mathematical facts together and we can understand that CO2 does not mix well with air; however, CO2 will heat faster than air and rise within the atmosphere, then the CO2 will cool faster than Air as it rises and then rapidly fall towards the lower atmosphere. This is the process through which gasses retain heat, they do NOT trap heat. Once CO2 cools and falls towards the planet, any greenhouse affect that it once had is now non-existent. To believe the CO2 forcing theory you would first have to disprove gravity and it's affects on all gasses.
> 
> .............................


What a magical world you live in 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Air: By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/atmospheric-gasses/


> Although the density of the atmosphere changes with altitude, the composition stays the same with altitude, with one exception. In the ozone layer, at about 20 km to 40 km above the surface, there is a greater concentration of ozone molecules than in other portions of the atmosphere.


Of course there is more CO2 at sea level, the air is denser.

Density and composition are obviously different considerations..


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> .....................
> 
> Of course I read the article; however, the topic that we are discussing is the affect of Obama era regulations on the coal industry, NOT potential pollution being emitted into the environment. .........................


The topic we are discussing is about climate change and what causes it.
Oxidized coal is one of the culprits whether Obama ruled against it or not.

You brought up the topic of ground water contamination and how legislation might affect the energy industry.
Well, I pointed out that previously you argued you stood for a clean environment.

Obviously you don't when it impacts coal industry jobs and coal corporate profits, a position they bought with contributions to your favorite President. ( Oh my!  )

So, it does look like your position is political. And you know what is said about Ducks


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> hat a magical world you live in
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
> Air: By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, *0.04% carbon dioxide,* and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.
> 
> https://courses.lumenlearning.com/geophysical/chapter/atmospheric-gasses/
> Of course there is more CO2 at sea level, the air is denser.
> 
> Density and composition are obviously different considerations..


Thanks for the articles that continue to prove my point!

Per your previous statements, man is responsible for 4% of that .04% of CO2, so.... watch out for that infinitesimal .001% of CO2 that man is responsible for in our atmosphere. 


Johnny b said:


> The topic we are discussing is about climate change and what causes it.
> Oxidized coal is one of the culprits whether Obama ruled against it or not.
> 
> You brought up the topic of ground water contamination and how legislation might affect the energy industry.
> Well, I pointed out that previously you argued you stood for a clean environment.
> 
> Obviously you don't when it impacts coal industry jobs and coal corporate profits, a position they bought with contributions to your favorite President. ( Oh my!  )
> 
> So, it does look like your position is political. And you know what is said about Ducks


You can claim that oxidized coal is responsible for man made global warming all you want; but, I am still not buying that oceanfront property in Arizona. 

Sigh. You seem a bit confused at the moment.  It's all cool though.

I always have stood for, and always will stand for, a clean environment. In all honesty, I am not a big fan of coal for energy production; however, I am more averse to the deliberate misconceptions being pushed about coal and the make believe impact that coal has on man made global warming. I am also equally averse to the U.S. government picking and choosing winners in commerce, which was repeated over and over at the end of GW Bush's Presidency and throughout the Obama Presidency. Probably happened during all presidencies; but, from the bailout forward, the favoritism has been extremely blatant.

And no, my position on this issue is not political. My position is about economic fairness and government non-intervention (except where a provable public health issue can be demonstrated without depending on a wild and extremely complicated global warming theory). Ever heard of Occam's Razor? You might want to look that one up sometime.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> So, it does look like your position is political. And you know what is said about Ducks


Hmm... Looks like Twitter agrees that Man Made Global Warming is a political agenda issue. 

*Elizabeth Warren slams Twitter for a policy that bans ads from groups fighting climate change*
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/eli...-to-climate-change.html?__source=twitter|main


> In a series of tweets on Tuesday, the Massachusetts Democrat attacked the company for blocking organizations that are fighting climate change from running ads on the social network while allowing ads from companies like Exxon on the same topic.
> 
> Her criticism comes a week after Twitter said it would no longer allow political ads on its service, a policy that blocks ads from politicians, ads that refer to an election or candidate or ads related to politically-sensitive issues.[Quote/]


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Thanks for the articles that continue to prove my point!
> 
> Per your previous statements, man is responsible for 4% of that .04% of CO2, so.... watch out for that infinitesimal .001% of CO2 that man is responsible for in our atmosphere.
> 
> You can claim that oxidized coal is responsible for man made global warming all you want; but, I am still not buying that oceanfront property in Arizona.
> 
> Sigh. You seem a bit confused at the moment.  It's all cool though.
> 
> I always have stood for, and always will stand for, a clean environment. In all honesty, I am not a big fan of coal for energy production; however, I am more averse to the deliberate misconceptions being pushed about coal and the make believe impact that coal has on man made global warming. I am also equally averse to the U.S. government picking and choosing winners in commerce, which was repeated over and over at the end of GW Bush's Presidency and throughout the Obama Presidency. Probably happened during all presidencies; but, from the bailout forward, the favoritism has been extremely blatant.
> 
> And no, my position on this issue is not political. My position is about economic fairness and government non-intervention (except where a provable public health issue can be demonstrated without depending on a wild and extremely complicated global warming theory). Ever heard of Occam's Razor? You might want to look that one up sometime.


Jack, calm down lol!

You are obviously still in a state of denial.



> Thanks for the articles that continue to prove my point!


You have no point, Jack.
Just denial of the environment you live in.
You have claimed the day to day change of weather is climate.
That air changes it's ratios of gasses magically.



> Per your previous statements, man is responsible for 4% of that .04% of CO2, so.... watch out for that infinitesimal .001% of CO2 that man is responsible for in our atmosphere.


Yes. Indeed, Jack.
Only the effect doesn't happen fast enough for a person to 'watch'.
Observe over time, yes. Like over several centuries rather than the natural process ( with out man's influence ) of many millennia.
You and your political comrades bank on the public's lack of intelligence when expressing your own.



> You can claim that oxidized coal is responsible for man made global warming all you want; but, I am still not buying that oceanfront property in Arizona.


You'd be long gone, passed away, but think of your great-grand children. 
Leave them a legacy they wouldn't drown in lol!



> I always have stood for, and always will stand for, a clean environment.


You outed yourself on that one, Jackie 
Yep, arguing not to stop the leaching of toxic metals/material into ground water was a really big admission.



> In all honesty, I am not a big fan of coal for energy production


Really?
Then why do you defend it when better technology exists that is more efficient, less costly and less damaging to the environment ( air, water and global warming )?
Are you merely confused, or is it done because of your position as an apologist for Trumpism?
I really don't see how you can image yourself as an environmentalist or even a friend of the environment, Jack.



> I am more averse to.....
> I am also equally averse to......


Reality.
Logic.
Science. ( unless it involves magic  )



> And no, my position on this issue is not political.



Well, logic and science have been ruled out, you deny reality, what's left? lol!



> Ever heard of Occam's Razor? You might want to look that one up sometime.


I have, have you?
Take a look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor


> Latin: "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity."
> 
> It is sometimes paraphrased by a statement like "The simplest solution is most likely the right one."* but is the same as the Razor only if results match.* Occam's razor says that when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions,[3] *and it is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions.*


I once long ago (  ) pointed out that logic wasn't your friend 

Denying reality, denying the definitions of terms and especially denying the findings of scientific endeavors out of convenience.........does NOT dovetail with Occam's Razor 

A hypothesis isn't correct because it's the simplest.
The simplest of hypothesis of the same result, is the logic of Occam's Razor.

( sigh! )

Magic ....lol!


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hmm... Looks like Twitter agrees that Man Made Global Warming is a political agenda issue.
> 
> *Elizabeth Warren slams Twitter for a policy that bans ads from groups fighting climate change*
> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/05/eli...-to-climate-change.html?__source=twitter|main


I see you're head line hunting again
and now you value the mentality of the Twitter-verse?

I've been wondering why your understanding of science seemed so wonky


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> I see you're head line hunting again
> and now you value the mentality of the Twitter-verse?
> 
> I've been wondering why your understanding of science seemed so wonky


HA! HA! Now that is funny. 

Almost as funny as believing that man's contribution to CO2 production (.001% of the total atmosphere) can change the global temperature.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> HA! HA! Now that is funny.
> 
> Almost as funny as believing that man's contribution to CO2 production (.001% of the total atmosphere) can change the global temperature.


And yet....it's happening. And measurable.

You are simply in a state of denial.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> HA! HA! Now that is funny.
> 
> Almost as funny as believing that man's contribution to CO2 production (.001% of the total atmosphere) can change the global temperature.


I do not think you understand how complex systems work.

Anthropogenic input is 4%. Not .001%. This is a known fact. Your math is a mis-direction on the same scale as the Ballad of the Missing Dollar.

Deny all you want. Science does not care about opinions, only facts.


----------



## Johnny b

Well....it's..it's magic, Tim


----------



## britekguy

And we all know the IPCC is a cabal of mad scientists, bent on the destruction of all world economies . . . (Or not.)


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> I do not think you understand how complex systems work.
> 
> Anthropogenic input is 4%. Not .001%. This is a known fact. Your math is a mis-direction on the same scale as the Ballad of the Missing Dollar.
> 
> Deny all you want. Science does not care about opinions, only facts.


Ok. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Anthropogenic input. Please clarify... Anthropogenic input is 4% of what exactly?

My understanding is that all of the CO2 put together is only .04% of the total atmosphere (even Wiki agrees with this) and that Anthropogenic CO2 input is the cause of accelerated global warming. So, I am naturally assessing that Anthropogenic input is primarily a subset of the Total CO2 in the atmosphere. Thereby putting the Anthropogenic input at .001% of the total atmosphere. If my understanding is wrong, I am more than willing to listen and research accordingly.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Ok. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Anthropogenic input. Please clarify... Anthropogenic input is 4% of what exactly?
> 
> My understanding is that all of the CO2 put together is only .04% of the total atmosphere (even Wiki agrees with this) and that Anthropogenic CO2 input is the cause of accelerated global warming. So, I am naturally assessing that Anthropogenic input is primarily a subset of the Total CO2 in the atmosphere. Thereby putting the Anthropogenic input at .001% of the total atmosphere. If my understanding is wrong, I am more than willing to listen and research accordingly.


Since Tim has left, I'll respond.

You are correct.
But Anthropogenic is an additional 4% of CO2 per year.

Stating .001%, trivializes the impact of an already small amount.
We know the impact of natural CO2. Adding 4% each year is a significant increase in regard to expressing an effect.
Do that for 150+ years since the industrial revolution, adds up to significant increases of CO2 as I posted recently in a graph.

Again:


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> Ok. Perhaps I am misunderstanding Anthropogenic input. Please clarify... Anthropogenic input is 4% of what exactly?
> 
> My understanding is that all of the CO2 put together is only .04% of the total atmosphere (even Wiki agrees with this) and that Anthropogenic CO2 input is the cause of accelerated global warming. So, I am naturally assessing that Anthropogenic input is primarily a subset of the Total CO2 in the atmosphere. Thereby putting the Anthropogenic input at .001% of the total atmosphere. If my understanding is wrong, I am more than willing to listen and research accordingly.


Again, you simply have no idea of how complex systems interact.

Anthro input is verified ~4%. This includes cows, cars, coal, everything. The spike since the Industrial Age is undeniable. The question is what to do. As the politicians who make policy are in politics to only line their pockets we,as civilians, are hosed.

Nations are relocating capital cities due to rising seas. This cannot be denied.

I am very glad my son knows Thunberg. He is aware of the issues facing us as a species and I think he will be making the correct eco-centric decisions as he grows into adulthood (15 yesterday btw...driving in a year...yikes) (Johnny, stop laughing)

You, IMHO, are not. You deny the science that is in front of you and could care less what you leave the following generations. Nothing personal but, again, IMHO, it is rather short-sighted.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> .................... I think he will be making the correct eco-centric decisions as he grows into adulthood (15 yesterday btw...driving in a year...yikes) (Johnny, stop laughing)
> 
> ......................




Best keep him away from the Discovery channel and Street Outlaws lol!

geezie pete, we've been at this topic a long time.

We talk about the effects of CO2, tipping points etc. But when the permafrost begins a serious melt and Methane starts percolating out of tundra environments, denial will become irrelevant.

I remember headlines like this several years ago:

* Mysterious craters blowing out of Russia could mean trouble for the whole planet *
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/30/sib...ses-of-methane-could-pose-broad-problems.html



> In northern Siberia, rising temperatures are causing mysterious giant craters - and even more dire consequences could be in store, say climate scientists.
> 
> The Russian province's long-frozen ground, called permafrost, is thawing, triggering massive changes to the region's landscape and ecology. It could even threaten human lives. .............
> 
> Methane is 86 times worse than carbon dioxide
> 
> Since 2014, several massive sinkholes have been discovered in the region. The first one reportedly measured over 50 ft wide.


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/20/hell-breaks-loose-tundra-thaws-weatherwatch









This was reported in Newsweek a little over 2 years ago:
It's about the dynamics of underground methane release from a geological perspective.

* Massive Craters From Methane Explosions Discovered in Arctic Ocean Where Ice Melted *
https://www.newsweek.com/hundreds-craters-methane-explosions-seafloor-arctic-norway-russia-619068

Interesting read, imo.


----------



## valis

He is smarter than that...and your response is what I was fishing for...

Methane is bad news, methane clathrates worse. Ive said it before but nowadays we are just along for the ride. Cant unscramble eggs or untoss a salad, as Fraser would say.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Since Tim has left, I'll respond.
> 
> You are correct.
> But Anthropogenic is an additional 4% of CO2 per year.
> 
> Stating .001%, trivializes the impact of an already small amount.
> We know the impact of natural CO2. Adding 4% each year is a significant increase in regard to expressing an effect.
> Do that for 150+ years since the industrial revolution, adds up to significant increases of CO2 as I posted recently in a graph.
> 
> Again:


I understand that CO2 and global temperatures have increased/decreased in tandem throughout history. However, CO2 levels have lagged behind said global temperature increases/decreases by 200 - 1,000 years. Even NASA admits as much before attempting to claim that the inverse process is true, where CO2 levels will lead the temperature association. Here is a graph for you Johnny, since you like them so much.


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> Again, you simply have no idea of how complex systems interact.
> 
> Anthro input is verified ~4%. This includes cows, cars, coal, everything. The spike since the Industrial Age is undeniable. The question is what to do. As the politicians who make policy are in politics to only line their pockets we,as civilians, are hosed.
> 
> Nations are relocating capital cities due to rising seas. This cannot be denied.
> 
> I am very glad my son knows Thunberg. He is aware of the issues facing us as a species and I think he will be making the correct eco-centric decisions as he grows into adulthood (15 yesterday btw...driving in a year...yikes) (Johnny, stop laughing)
> 
> You, IMHO, are not. You deny the science that is in front of you and could care less what you leave the following generations. Nothing personal but, again, IMHO, it is rather short-sighted.


Ok. Including everything that can be considered a greenhouse gas that scientists are concerned about and including other trace gasses that are not greenhouse gasses, the total will still add up to less than 1% of the total atmosphere. So Anthro input must be a subset of this grouping of gases (btw - I liked the previous Missing Dollar reference!  ) At best we can only attribute Anthro input to be .4% of the total atmosphere.

Also, I do not appreciate the untrue accusations that I do not care about our environment. The requirement and need for a clean planet is undeniable.

What is deniable manifests within the extremely complicated man made global warming theory which has multiple fallacies and flies against several common sense observations. Is our planet warming? Yes. Is man increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. But, CAGW is simply a theory, which is preloaded with an assumption that increased CO2 causes a rise in the global temperature, and this theory has yet to be definitively proven, or disproven.

If the CAGW scientists would produce full information and full graphs to the public, instead of lying by omission, by hiding what is undesirable for public dissemination and publishing only very focused slices of information on greenhouse gasses, I would be much more likely to give credit to the CAGW theory.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I understand that CO2 and global temperatures have increased/decreased in tandem throughout history. However, CO2 levels have lagged behind said global temperature increases/decreases by 200 - 1,000 years. Even NASA admits as much before attempting to claim that the inverse process is true, where CO2 levels will lead the temperature association. Here is a graph for you Johnny, since you like them so much.


Here's a graph for you and I'll even link to a discussion:










https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm



> Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.
> 
> This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.





> A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
> 
> 
> The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
> 
> This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
> 
> The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.
> While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured _after_ that atmospheric CO2 increase


As Tim posted:



> Again, you simply have no idea of how complex systems interact.


Jack, did you notice the blogger's comments at the site where you got that graph?

https://www.climate-skeptic.com/



> I am always amazed at how people like to draw conclusions about what I write merely from the title, without actually reading everything I wrote. This is cross-posted from Coyote Blog, where I already am getting accusations of selling out. Please read before judging. *I have proposed a carbon tax* in a way that would be a net economic benefit even if one totally dismisses the threat of man-made global warming.
> 
> ......................


And he goes into what you, Jack, would likely call a liberal leftest rant on proposing carbon taxes.






And that appears to be dated as his last post to his blog.
A 3 and 1/2 year old post.

BTW, I have NEVER suggested a carbon tax and don't want to go there 
And in the last 15 years or so of discussing global warming with Tim, I don't remember Tim endorsing a carbon tax......BUT your source does LOL!!!

Jack, that is just so sad


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> .....
> 
> Also, I do not appreciate the untrue accusations that I do not care about our environment. .................


You did that by a contradiction of your own words, Jack.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Ok. Including everything that can be considered a greenhouse gas that scientists are concerned about and including other trace gasses that are not greenhouse gasses, the total will still add up to less than 1% of the total atmosphere. So Anthro input must be a subset of this grouping of gases (btw - I liked the previous Missing Dollar reference!  ) At best we can only attribute Anthro input to be .4% of the total atmosphere.
> 
> Also, I do not appreciate the untrue accusations that I do not care about our environment. The requirement and need for a clean planet is undeniable.
> 
> What is deniable manifests within the extremely complicated man made global warming theory which has multiple fallacies and flies against several common sense observations. Is our planet warming? Yes. Is man increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes. But, CAGW is simply a theory, which is preloaded with an assumption that increased CO2 causes a rise in the global temperature, and this theory has yet to be definitively proven, or disproven.
> 
> If the CAGW scientists would produce full information and full graphs to the public, instead of lying by omission, by hiding what is undesirable for public dissemination and publishing only very focused slices of information on greenhouse gasses, I would be much more likely to give credit to the CAGW theory.


Jack, science is a little more complex than some blogger banging on a keyboard begging for attention with click bait at 3 am in the morning while swilling the last of his Red Bull, and squirming in his underwear


----------



## Johnny b

Global warming in the Baltic, nutrient concentrations and oxygen deficiency in deep water and the tourist factor:

* Is the Baltic Sea at a crossroads? *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...iences/is-the-baltic-sea-at-a-crossroads.html


> Can effective marine management mitigate climate change impacts so that the Baltic Sea regains a good environmental status? Can record blue-green algae blooms and other extreme events with an impact on future tourism be averted?


https://www.innovations-report.com/...iences/is-the-baltic-sea-at-a-crossroads.html

An interesting read, imo.


----------



## Johnny b

Fugitive gas migration

* Atmospheric pressure impacts greenhouse gas emissions from leaky oil and gas wells *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...s-emissions-from-leaky-oil-and-gas-wells.html



> Variations in atmospheric pressure tend to compress or expand soil gas, with the most significant impact at sites with deep water tables, explains Forde. During a high-pressure system, soil gas is compressed and pushes leaked natural gas deeper underground, where it will likely not be detected at the surface.
> 
> When atmospheric pressure declines, natural gas trapped below the surface during the previous high-pressure conditions can escape to the atmosphere, contributing to greenhouse gas emission
> 
> .................
> 
> "We found that the magnitude and duration of atmospheric pressure changes directly influenced the amount of natural gas coming out the ground and being emitted into the atmosphere," said Forde. "Under high pressure conditions, methane emissions decreased, sometimes even below the detection limit. But when atmospheric pressure decreased, methane emissions increased rapidly - at times more than 20-fold in less than 24 hours."
> 
> As a result, continuous monitoring over a longer period of time is key. "This will help to more accurately detect and evaluate gas migrations and emissions and thus, the risks posed by leaking oil and gas wells," said Forde.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ...........
> 
> ..............
> 
> If the CAGW scientists would produce full information and full graphs to the public, instead of lying by omission, by hiding what is undesirable for public dissemination and publishing only very focused slices of information on greenhouse gasses, I would be much more likely to give credit to the CAGW theory.


Just because specific climate data isn't posted at the blog sites you visit, that doesn't mean it isn't available.
It was obvious long before your current post, you only read what you search for and that is obviously influenced by your political biases.

You seem to think the science of climatology is simplistic on one hand and secretive bogus hidden complexity on another, depending on which is convenient at the time.

Here is an example of ongoing real scientific research, not the blogger 'science' that's copied from one blogger site to the next like 'Chinese whispers', that you and Tony seem to depend upon:

* HALO mission over the southern hemisphere investigates ozone depletion and processes affecting our climate *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...tion-and-processes-affecting-our-climate.html


> Researchers will study the influence of gravity waves on the polar vortex over the Antarctic and analyze the chemical and dynamic processes at play in the tropopause


Scientific findings of merit wind up in peer review publications like Nature, not the bogus clickbait blogger sites you and Tony visit and use as authorities .....


----------



## Johnny b

* 2019 Arctic sea ice minimum tied for second lowest on record *

https://www.innovations-report.com/...minimum-tied-for-second-lowest-on-record.html



> The extent of Arctic sea ice at the end of this summer was effectively tied with 2007 and 2016 for second lowest since modern record keeping began in the late 1970s. An analysis of satellite data by NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado Boulder shows that the 2019 minimum extent, which was likely reached on Sept. 18, measured 1.60 million square miles (4.15 million square kilometers).


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Just because specific climate data isn't posted at the blog sites you visit, that doesn't mean it isn't available.
> It was obvious long before your current post, you only read what you search for and that is obviously influenced by your political biases.
> 
> You seem to think the science of climatology is simplistic on one hand and secretive bogus hidden complexity on another, depending on which is convenient at the time.


You can make wild accusations and attempt to justify those accusations through unfounded conjecture all that you like; however, the intelligent readers of this forum will be able to see beyond the antics of personal attacks, insults, and belittlement of others.

My point still stands that there are several problems with simply believing the very complex global warming *theory*.

1. At it's utmost and unbelievably highest level, Anthroprogenic warming can only be attributed to .4% of the atmosphere, as opposed to the 4% that is commonly bantered about as fact.
2. CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere and man is responsible for 4% of that .04%; although .04% is such a minute amount of the atmosphere, we are constantly lectured/scolded about reducing individual carbon footprints.
3. Levels of CO2 lag behind changes in global temperature by 200 - 1000 years; however, we are asked to believe that higher CO2 levels are suddenly leading the charge as positive feedback. If the positive feedback theory were true, then once carbon levels rise, it would become impossible for the global temperature to ever see a reduction, or cooling affect. 
5. It is impossible for greenhouse gases to TRAP heat. This is a violation of basic thermodynamics. Rather greenhouse gasses RETAIN heat, and loose said heat upon cooling at night, or after rising in the atmosphere, after which ALL greenhouse effects affecting the gas will be lost until the gas is reheated. 
6. Most people have no clue how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Just start asking random people and you will readily see that as a fact. This is because the media only provides selective information to show the public. This indicates a deliberate disinformation campaign being conducted by the media and by many so-called peer reviewed papers; because, if the whole picture was provided to the public in layman terms, the global warming *theory *would be disregarded as junk science by significant numbers of people. 
7. The global warming *theory *has to be constantly pushed in order for all of theses climate change scientists to continue receiving their government grants. Follow the money. 
8. Much bigger factors affect the temperature of the planet. Distance from the sun, tilt of the earth, magnetic field around the planet, volcanic eruptions, solar activity, and radiation all have a significantly greater affect on the global temperature, as opposed to the total and minute amount of CO2 (.04%) that is actually in the atmosphere. 
9. Back to thermodynamics. Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics which becomes pretty technical; but, when applied it essentially shows that the atmosphere around the planet has a cooling affect, not a heating affect. 
10. Santa Clause is real. In Spirit - I agree. Keep the planet clean is a simple message that most people will agree with.

There are many other concerns with the global warming *theory*, but, that is enough for most people to chew on.


----------



## valis

Last I checked, gravity is a theory as well...but I am still certain what will happen if I defenestrate myself from the 10th floor...


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> You can make wild accusations and attempt to justify those accusations through unfounded conjecture all that you like; however, the intelligent readers of this forum will be able to see beyond the antics of personal attacks, insults, and belittlement of others.
> 
> My point still stands that there are several problems with simply believing the very complex global warming *theory*.
> 
> 1. At it's utmost and unbelievably highest level, Anthroprogenic warming can only be attributed to .4% of the atmosphere, as opposed to the 4% that is commonly bantered about as fact.
> 2. CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere and man is responsible for 4% of that .04%; although .04% is such a minute amount of the atmosphere, we are constantly lectured/scolded about reducing individual carbon footprints.
> 3. Levels of CO2 lag behind changes in global temperature by 200 - 1000 years; however, we are asked to believe that higher CO2 levels are suddenly leading the charge as positive feedback. If the positive feedback theory were true, then once carbon levels rise, it would become impossible for the global temperature to ever see a reduction, or cooling affect.
> 5. It is impossible for greenhouse gases to TRAP heat. This is a violation of basic thermodynamics. Rather greenhouse gasses RETAIN heat, and loose said heat upon cooling at night, or after rising in the atmosphere, after which ALL greenhouse effects affecting the gas will be lost until the gas is reheated.
> 6. Most people have no clue how much CO2 is in the atmosphere. Just start asking random people and you will readily see that as a fact. This is because the media only provides selective information to show the public. This indicates a deliberate disinformation campaign being conducted by the media and by many so-called peer reviewed papers; because, if the whole picture was provided to the public in layman terms, the global warming *theory *would be disregarded as junk science by significant numbers of people.
> 7. The global warming *theory *has to be constantly pushed in order for all of theses climate change scientists to continue receiving their government grants. Follow the money.
> 8. Much bigger factors affect the temperature of the planet. Distance from the sun, tilt of the earth, magnetic field around the planet, volcanic eruptions, solar activity, and radiation all have a significantly greater affect on the global temperature, as opposed to the total and minute amount of CO2 (.04%) that is actually in the atmosphere.
> 9. Back to thermodynamics. Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics which becomes pretty technical; but, when applied it essentially shows that the atmosphere around the planet has a cooling affect, not a heating affect.
> 10. Santa Clause is real. In Spirit - I agree. Keep the planet clean is a simple message that most people will agree with.
> 
> There are many other concerns with the global warming *theory*, but, that is enough for most people to chew on.


Nothing has changed, Jack.
You embrace the same old worn out arguments and distortions.

You still deny the effects being observed , disbelieve the science behind the explanations and deny the data.

You post absurdities.
From Occam's Razor to the incredibly botched application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Is someone advising you to post these absurdities, Jack?
Or do you make them up on your own?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ....................
> 
> If the CAGW scientists would produce full information and full graphs to the public, instead of lying by omission, by hiding what is undesirable for public dissemination and publishing only very focused slices of information on greenhouse gasses, I would be much more likely to give credit to the CAGW theory.


Most theory and collected data in support, is available through peer review sources for scientists to review.

Well, not EPA scientists and regulators in the near future.
The Trump administration is working to make those sources illegal for EPA considerations and rulings.

* EPA still moving to limit science used to support regulations *
https://arstechnica.com/science/201...to-limit-science-used-to-support-regulations/

Jack, you argue to open the public to many risks beyond global warming, in support of Trumpism's relentless quest for profits at 'any cost'. 
That 'cost' being the detriment to the physical health of the public. :down:


----------



## Johnny b

Jack, for some odd reason, your acquaintance OBP ( Tony ) had a mistaken respect for the climate scientist, treating Zeke Hausfather as if he was a denier.

I kept a link to Zeke for later contributions to this thread 

* Explainer: How climate change is accelerating sea level rise *
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

Interesting article from an actual scientist.

Jack:
I honestly don't expect you to understand much of that article in terms of the findings, you simply have shown no affinity for scientific concepts.

But as you can/should see, discovering posted cherry picked data sets from blogger sites doesn't lead to correct scientific understandings when the intended reader has no ability to correlate/compare scientific relationships.

The result of such ignorance leads deniers to reject scientific findings because of their political/religious bias.
Making it even worse, deniers refuse to overcome their short falls and merely continue denial.

Observation:
Most scientists operate in a realm of study.
Most deniers operate in the realm of click-bate web sites.

One segment generates findings.
The other cherry picks elements of those findings to generate support for their biases.

Another big problem is, too many people can't tell the difference.


----------



## britekguy

Johnny b said:


> But as you can/should see, discovering posted cherry picked data sets from blogger sites doesn't lead to correct scientific understandings when the intended reader has no ability to correlate/compare scientific relationships.
> 
> The result of such ignorance leads deniers to reject scientific findings because of their political/religious bias.
> Making it even worse, deniers refuse to overcome their short falls and merely continue denial.
> 
> Observation:
> Most scientists operate in a realm of study.
> Most deniers operate in the realm of click-bate web sites.
> 
> One segment generates findings.
> The other cherry picks elements of those findings to generate support for their biases.
> 
> Another big problem is, too many people can't tell the difference.


And science itself is self-correcting. There have been many hypotheses, and even some theories, that were eventually rejected because additional incoming data removed acceptance of the ideas that underpinned them. Scientists can definitely be slow to accept some of this, particularly at the early stages, as they're as subject to confirmation bias as any of the rest of us. But as the preponderance of evidence builds, their profession and training requires them to consider it and eventually reject specious arguments.

The concepts underlying the theory of anthropogenic global climate change (man-made global climate change) were not greeted warmly when they first appeared on the scene in the scientific community. There were a lot of doubters, a great many of whom undertook research in the hopes that the results would not lend support to the idea that the activity of humans could possibly influence the global climate. What they found instead, to their dismay (though that eventually fades), is that the preponderance of evidence just keeps growing stronger in support of the theory.

You can't, in this day and age, even generate a scientific hoax that will withstand scrutiny for even a brief time. It's very easy to find even single exceptions that are such that they can nullify a hypothesis. Yet debunked hypotheses persist in certain groups because they rely on faith and ideology, not verifiable fact.

When you have decades of research, by scientists around the world, who operate in completely different political and economic spheres coming to the conclusion that anthropogenic global climate change is real, why on earth would any rational person doubt it?

I guess the key word is rational. Those who believe that logic and reason are what should dictate belief, particularly in the realm of the physically measurable, cannot and will not ever understand climate change deniers. They essentially just keep saying, "So, you've got decades of research showing this is real, but contrarian single scientist (or, even worse) contrarian bloggers, say you're wrong, so you are!" The inability to apply critical thinking skills and consider the source is breathtaking.

Even though it was written, and recently, about an entirely different topic, the concept about what's going on with climate change deniers is precisely the same:

*Science has become just another voice in the room; it has lost its platform. Now, you simply declare your own truth.*
~ Dr. Paul A. Offit, in _New York Times_ article, _How Anti-Vaccine Sentiment Took Hold in the United States__,_ September 23, 2019


----------



## Johnny b

britekguy said:


> And science itself is self-correcting. There have been many hypotheses, and even some theories, that were eventually rejected because additional incoming data removed acceptance of the ideas that underpinned them. Scientists can definitely be slow to accept some of this, particularly at the early stages, as they're as subject to confirmation bias as any of the rest of us. But as the preponderance of evidence builds, their profession and training requires them to consider it and eventually reject specious arguments.
> ....................


Indeed.



> And science itself is self-correcting.


The 'Scientific Method' involves skepticism, not just allowing challenge, but promoting challenge for the purposes of verification and correction. It's the basis for the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Sometimes it is slow. But the process needs to exist for correction and new discoveries to occur.

The term 'skepticism' has been horribly abused by inferring it is a 'means of denial' when in fact, in the context of scientific discovery, it is a search and challenge for correctness.



> Science has become just another voice in the room; it has lost its platform. Now, you simply declare your own truth.


This has also been a problem in relation to evolution vs. creation science.
The first is an event, the second a religious belief denying the event.


----------



## britekguy

There is skepticism rooted in rationality, too, of course. Not uncritically accepting something during the period when "the jury is still out" makes perfect sense. That is, as you have wisely noted, not denial, but allowing room for doubt.

With regard to the theories of natural selection and evolution, the jury is definitely not still out. Although something where controlled studies can be performed cannot be absolutely proven, when every shred of evidence collected over a period of well over one hundred years reinforces a thesis it would be foolish to reject it barring the appearance of some really compelling counterevidence.

There is also, sadly, a gross misunderstanding of both the meaning of hypothesis and theory in science among the non-scientific community at large. Far too many think hypothesis is, "A thought that's a specific scientist's whim," and a theory being a system built upon those whims. Certain hypotheses are whims, but that get promptly tested to either confirm or refute their validity. A theory is something which only comes into existence after enough evidence exists to point those studying a given area directly toward a given direction. It's never, ever, something wildly speculative, but founded in a huge body of evidence. Even a theory can be overturned if we come across some new way to measure things that reveals something never before known or imagined, but that happens very seldom.

Those who believe that scientific theories (and not just evolution) can be dismissed just because they don't comport with their own ideologies and "alternate facts" are blatantly dishonest (whether that's through ignorance or willful stupidity).


----------



## Johnny b

New data on the impact of global warming, sea level rise and human displacement.

*Report: Flooded Future: Global vulnerability to sea level rise worse than previously understood *

https://www.climatecentral.org/news...a-level-rise-worse-than-previously-understood



> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
> 
> As a result of heat-trapping pollution from human activities, rising sea levels could within three decades push chronic floods higher than land currently home to 300 million people
> 
> By 2100, areas now home to 200 million people could fall permanently below the high tide line
> 
> The new figures are the result of an improved global elevation dataset produced by Climate Central using machine learning, and revealing that coastal elevations are significantly lower than previously understood across wide areas
> 
> The threat is concentrated in coastal Asia and could have profound economic and political consequences within the lifetimes of people alive today
> 
> Findings are documented in a new peer-reviewed paper in the journal Nature Communications


.........................
Above link-Nature Communications:
* New elevation data triple estimates of global vulnerability to sea-level rise and coastal flooding *

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z


----------



## Chawbacon

Oh yeah... Sure! An early snow and a three year cycle of colder and more wet than expected weather is global warming at work. Seriously? It is very clear that all common sense has left the building and it is riding on the Man-Made Global Warming bus. 

*You can blame global warming for Burger King's zesty sauce shortage*
https://thetakeout.com/global-horseradish-shortage-burger-king-zesty-sauce-1839980961



> *You can blame climate change for the shortage. *The _Milwaukee Journal Sentinel_ reported earlier this month that *an early snowfall made it impossible to harvest about half the crop* at Huntsinger Farms near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, which supplies Silver Spring Foods, the nation's leading provider of horseradish. Since horseradish is a hardy tuber,* none of the crop died*, but between 1.5 and 2 million pounds will remain in the ground until the next harvest in early spring, after the thaw. Silver Spring was already behind in planting because of a* low harvest in 2018 and three seasons of unexpectedly cold, wet weather*. This may be a harbinger of change in the horseradish industry.


----------



## valis

somerhing you continually miss; global climate change is NOT the same thing as global warming.

And for the zillionth time, one can lead a horse to water. Horse drinks if he wants to. The facts are out there, denying the fact does not make them go away.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Oh yeah... Sure! An early snow and a three year cycle of colder and more wet than expected weather is global warming at work. Seriously? It is very clear that all common sense has left the building and it is riding on the Man-Made Global Warming bus.
> 
> *You can blame global warming for Burger King's zesty sauce shortage*
> https://thetakeout.com/global-horseradish-shortage-burger-king-zesty-sauce-1839980961


No wonder your take on science seems so wonky......a food web site? Really? 

Quote:


> When the weather is good we need to harvest faster."


----------



## britekguy

Global warming and global climate change from it are inextricably connected, and sometimes in paradoxical ways.

The global average temperature rising has all sorts of impacts as far as creating more extremes in many different ways, including more extreme cold microclimates.

I wish the current preferred terminology, global climate change, had been the one used consistently from the beginning. But that climate change can be directly linked to rising average global temperature, AKA global warming, and result in more extremes of cold in specific pockets as new weather patterns take hold.

Complex systems are, well, complex. Not that I think anyone who has any interest in science and in paying attention to what the consensus in the scientific community is, and why, fails to understand this. Deferring to subject matter experts in their areas of respective expertise is what rational and intelligent people do as a matter of course.


----------



## Johnny b

britekguy said:


> ............................... Deferring to subject matter experts in their areas of respective expertise is what rational and intelligent people do as a matter of course.


I agree.

But you are still relatively new to this forum and it often doesn't work that way, here.


----------



## Johnny b

NOAA recently released this global graph of temperature departures:

Looks like bad weather for the US


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> I agree.
> 
> But you are still relatively new to this forum and it often doesn't work that way, here.


LOL!!!


----------



## britekguy

All too often it doesn't work that way anywhere.

See my post in a similar vein, lamenting this long slide into anti-intellectualism and lack of respect for subject matter experts on another tech forum: https://www.technibble.com/forums/threads/why-are-we-using-ntfs-in-2020.83733/#post-688712

Ignorance is curable, willful ignorance, sadly, isn't. At least not without some experience of the _Road to Damascus_ variety.


----------



## Johnny b

New records set for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pre...centrations-atmosphere-reach-yet-another-high

A pdf:
WMO GREENHOUSE GAS
BULLETIN The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere
Based on Global Observations through 2018

http://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.a...in-15_en.pdf?mQP5SDxBr_pHsQNJsAPrF8E5XnqkfHo2


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> New records set for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere:
> 
> https://public.wmo.int/en/media/pre...centrations-atmosphere-reach-yet-another-high
> 
> A pdf:
> WMO GREENHOUSE GAS
> BULLETIN The State of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere
> Based on Global Observations through 2018
> 
> http://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.a...in-15_en.pdf?mQP5SDxBr_pHsQNJsAPrF8E5XnqkfHo2


This is a good article that demonstrates how we need to better understand the affects of man made pollutants in our atmosphere. Unfortunately, the article also goes off the rails when it rolls into the global warming station stop of bologna.

So let's look at some of the immediate and glaring problems:

1. Based on a false premise. Gases, greenhouse or not, *cannot TRAP heat*. Gases can only *retain heat*. This is a very basic science concept that is taught during high school science classes. Note the first line of the article that demonstrates this false premise.


> Geneva, 25 November 2019 - Levels of *heat-trapping greenhouse gases* in the atmosphere have reached another new record high, according to the World Meteorological Organization.


2. Lies by omission. This article focuses on primarily on the radiative forcing caused by those *evil greenhouse gasses (GHGs)* and only gives percentages and numbers within that* GHG bubble zone* (for lack of a better term). The article completely fails to address the amount of greenhouse gasses as part of the *total atmosphere*. So lets look at the total atmosphere boys and girls. See how small the amount of GHGs are? Hint: Put all the GHGs together and you have less than 1% of the total atmosphere.









3. The article claims that we are experiencing *Historic Levels of CO2*; but, the article also admits that this has all happened before without man's contribution. 


> "It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3-5 million years ago. Back then, the temperature was 2-3°C warmer, sea level was 10-20 meters higher than now," said Mr Taalas.


4. Now this next quote from the article caused me to ponder for a moment. *If *anthropologic CO2 is really that bad, and* if just a small amount* can drastically heat up the planet and cause historic floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, snowfall, etc., then shouldn't we have seen *Florida completely underwater* during, or shortly after, the 1960's? Oh wait, yeah, we know that historically the *increase of CO2 has lagged behind the increase in global temperature by 400 to 1200 years*. So that means Florida better watch out in *year 2360!*


> The 14C fossil fuel signal in *atmospheric CO2 was swamped by the near doubling of 14C in the atmosphere in the early 1960s *due to 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear weapons testing (see panel (d) in the figure on the left), making 14C unusable for fossil fuel detection since the early 1950s. Yet that human-produced 14C spike has now roughly levelled throughout the carbon cycle.


It's not that we should ignore what we are pumping into the atmosphere. But we should also not ignore basic common sense.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> This is a good article that demonstrates how we need to better understand the affects of man made pollutants in our atmosphere. Unfortunately, the article also goes off the rails when it rolls into the global warming station stop of bologna.
> 
> So let's look at some of the immediate and glaring problems:
> 
> 1. Based on a false premise. Gases, greenhouse or not, *cannot TRAP heat*. Gases can only *retain heat*. This is a very basic science concept that is taught during high school science classes. Note the first line of the article that demonstrates this false premise.
> 
> 2. Lies by omission. This article focuses on primarily on the radiative forcing caused by those *evil greenhouse gasses (GHGs)* and only gives percentages and numbers within that* GHG bubble zone* (for lack of a better term). The article completely fails to address the amount of greenhouse gasses as part of the *total atmosphere*. So lets look at the total atmosphere boys and girls. See how small the amount of GHGs are? Hint: Put all the GHGs together and you have less than 1% of the total atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The article claims that we are experiencing *Historic Levels of CO2*; but, the article also admits that this has all happened before without man's contribution.
> 
> 4. Now this next quote from the article caused me to ponder for a moment. *If *anthropologic CO2 is really that bad, and* if just a small amount* can drastically heat up the planet and cause historic floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, snowfall, etc., then shouldn't we have seen *Florida completely underwater* during, or shortly after, the 1960's? Oh wait, yeah, we know that historically the *increase of CO2 has lagged behind the increase in global temperature by 400 to 1200 years*. So that means Florida better watch out in *year 2360!*
> 
> It's not that we should ignore what we are pumping into the atmosphere. But we should also not ignore basic common sense.





> 1. Based on a false premise. Gases, greenhouse or not, *cannot TRAP heat*. Gases can only *retain heat*.


Same thing. The issue is, greenhouse gasses absorb infrared energy. Much is reflected outbound, but an element of that energy is retained and warms the atmosphere. It's actually necessary as described in the ACS article below.



> This is a very basic science concept that is taught during high school science classes.


I'm skeptical and......
that's not exactly something to brag about these days.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...narratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect.html
(Too much to copy and paste)
BTW, ACS stands for American Chemical Society.
Their reputation is solid.



> . Lies by omission. This article focuses on primarily on the radiative forcing caused by those evil greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and only gives percentages and numbers within that GHG bubble zone (for lack of a better term). The article completely fails to address the amount of greenhouse gasses as part of the total atmosphere.


Same old story, denial.
And here we are again, victims of your denial , BS Receptivity.

You've been given data and theory, you don't like it, so you deny it.



> The article claims that we are experiencing Historic Levels of CO2; but, the article also admits that this has all happened before without man's contribution.


Yes, millions of years before man's influence when the Earth had a different environment.
Those 'forcings' I spoke about are not fixed through out time, they change as the environment changes, as the Sun's output changes.
Even the difference in vegetation has an impact.

Why don't you know this?

Your high school didn't teach it?



> If anthropologic CO2 is really that bad, and if just a small amount can drastically heat up the planet and cause historic floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, snowfall, etc., then shouldn't we have seen Florida completely underwater during, or shortly after, the 1960's?


The problem you face is, you aren't debating with a liberal.
You want to.
You seem to.
And that's why your arguments have looked so silly.

As to Florida......
Just give it time  ( longer than the human life span )
The seas and oceans are rising and it's measurable.



> It's not that we should ignore what we are pumping into the atmosphere. But we should also not ignore basic common sense.


......



> So let's look at some of the immediate and glaring problems:


Sure thing 'Mike'

BTW, interesting source for that graph 
https://www.rajras.in/

Why in the world aren't you using a scientific site?
Google image search?


----------



## Johnny b

Two well known scientists discuss climate models.

Sabine Hossenfelder
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder )

and 
Tim Palmer
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Palmer_(physicist) )

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/20...tm_campaign=Feed:+Backreaction+(Backreaction)

* Did scientists get climate change wrong? *


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Same thing. The issue is, greenhouse gasses absorb infrared energy. Much is reflected outbound, but an element of that energy is retained and warms the atmosphere. It's actually necessary as described in the ACS article below.


Same thing? I hate to bust your bubble; but, there is a big difference between Trap and Retain when it comes to any gas. You love to google terms, so I am sure that you can figure this one out. 


Johnny b said:


> Same old story, denial.
> And here we are again, victims of your denial , BS Receptivity.
> 
> You've been given data and theory, you don't like it, so you deny it.


Well, you have misinterpreted my intent once again. It is not that I don't like your data and theory, rather, it is that your theory fails miserably in several areas when common sense is applied and the data is no where near as empirical as you make it out to be. Thinking here about the reference made by Valis a few posts back about Gravity being a theory too, and that he would still not jump out a window (freaking hilarious by the way, laughed my hind end off).

With the theory of gravity though, we have empirical data that shows you will definitely fall when you jump out of that window. But with the Global Warming bologna, you are essentially telling us that if you jump out that window you will suddenly float towards the sky. Remember... Historically, CO2 levels have lagged behind global temperature changes by 400 - 1200 years. This indicates that any heating or cooling affect that CO2 has is negligible at best. IF CO2 is a significant self fueling heat factor (as you would have me believe) then our global temperature would never recede.



Johnny b said:


> Yes, millions of years before man's influence when the Earth had a different environment.
> Those 'forcings' I spoke about are not fixed through out time, they change as the environment changes, as the Sun's output changes.
> Even the difference in vegetation has an impact.
> 
> Why don't you know this?
> 
> Your high school didn't teach it?


Sigh, again with the petty insults. You really do use the same argument tactics that Trump does. Did you perhaps attend his University? 

To make it a simpler concept. CO2 begins to increase dramatically in the fall, and begins to decrease dramatically in the spring. Why? Primarily the dormant/active plant life cycles concerning CO2 absorption. Now, you view this as an indication that high levels of CO2 warm the planet, OR, you could say that low levels of CO2 cool the planet. But this directly conflicts with the empirical historic data concerning CO2 levels lagging behind global temperature changes.

Look there's that pesky common sense concept raising it's ugly head again. But at least you were correct about the Sun's solar output! That is the true big mover of global temperature.



Johnny b said:


> Sure thing 'Mike'
> 
> BTW, interesting source for that graph
> https://www.rajras.in/
> 
> Why in the world aren't you using a scientific site?
> Google image search?


Ok Baby Trump! Criticize the source of the graph, regardless if the graph is correct, or not. But yeah, Google image search. I know how you love the graphs.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Same thing? I hate to bust your bubble; but, there is a big difference between Trap and Retain when it comes to any gas. You love to google terms, so I am sure that you can figure this one out.
> 
> Well, you have misinterpreted my intent once again. It is not that I don't like your data and theory, rather, it is that your theory fails miserably in several areas when common sense is applied and the data is no where near as empirical as you make it out to be. Thinking here about the reference made by Valis a few posts back about Gravity being a theory too, and that he would still not jump out a window (freaking hilarious by the way, laughed my hind end off).
> 
> With the theory of gravity though, we have empirical data that shows you will definitely fall when you jump out of that window. But with the Global Warming bologna, you are essentially telling us that if you jump out that window you will suddenly float towards the sky. Remember... Historically, CO2 levels have lagged behind global temperature changes by 400 - 1200 years. This indicates that any heating or cooling affect that CO2 has is negligible at best. IF CO2 is a significant self fueling heat factor (as you would have me believe) then our global temperature would never recede.
> 
> Sigh, again with the petty insults. You really do use the same argument tactics that Trump does. Did you perhaps attend his University?
> 
> To make it a simpler concept. CO2 begins to increase dramatically in the fall, and begins to decrease dramatically in the spring. Why? Primarily the dormant/active plant life cycles concerning CO2 absorption. Now, you view this as an indication that high levels of CO2 warm the planet, OR, you could say that low levels of CO2 cool the planet. But this directly conflicts with the empirical historic data concerning CO2 levels lagging behind global temperature changes.
> 
> Look there's that pesky common sense concept raising it's ugly head again. But at least you were correct about the Sun's solar output! That is the true big mover of global temperature.
> 
> Ok Baby Trump! Criticize the source of the graph, regardless if the graph is correct, or not. But yeah, Google image search. I know how you love the graphs.





> Same thing? I hate to bust your bubble; but, there is a big difference between Trap and Retain when it comes to any gas. You love to google terms, so I am sure that you can figure this one out.


I'd rather read your comic book versions of science fiction. 

They are the same in the context of energy exchanges, greenhouse gasses and the warming of the Earth by solar radiation.
It's been explained more than once.



> Well, you have misinterpreted my intent once again. It is not that I don't like your data and theory, rather, it is that your theory fails miserably in several areas when common sense is applied and the data is no where near as empirical as you make it out to be.


And yet you've not referred to a single viable theory to explain the data gathered other than denial and the constant claim that it's impossible.
BTW, it's not my theory that's being discussed.
It's a theory the majority of the scientific community is proposing.

However, you do seem to be constructing your own theories A theory of denial. 
And now sophistry. Shocking.



> But with the Global Warming bologna, you are essentially telling us that if you jump out that window you will suddenly float towards the sky.



Let me guess.
You were a liberal arts major. 



> Remember... Historically, CO2 levels have lagged behind global temperature changes by 400 - 1200 years. This indicates that any heating or cooling affect that CO2 has is negligible at best.


And here's you again with a short memory when it's convenient.
That's already been discussed and at the time I suspected it went over your head.
Or was that out of convenience, too?

Jack, you're simply a time waster, constantly making the same argument expecting a different response each time.



> IF CO2 is a significant self fueling heat factor (as you would have me believe) then our global temperature would never recede.


Jack, I'm not here to make you accept scientific findings.
I don't think it's possible.
Scientists will keep on publishing their findings and I suspect you'll keep on denying them.



> Sigh, again with the petty insults. You really do use the same argument tactics that Trump does.



And you you still haven't explained why your basic education lacked a background in geography, geology and paleontology.
Were you home schooled?



> To make it a simpler concept. CO2 begins to increase dramatically in the fall, and begins to decrease dramatically in the spring. Why? Primarily the dormant/active plant life cycles concerning CO2 absorption. Now, you view this as an indication that high levels of CO2 warm the planet, OR, you could say that low levels of CO2 cool the planet. But this directly conflicts with the empirical historic data concerning CO2 levels lagging behind global temperature changes.


Did Tony suggest you post that?
Well, that statement is certainly an annual cycle, but doesn't explain why the CO2 levels are increasing when comparing multiple annual events.
Jack, it's really a poor attempt at denial.
CO2 is scientifically measurable.
And it's been increasing.
I posted a graph several times to that effect and posted the source.



> But at least you were correct about the Sun's solar output! That is the true big mover of global temperature.


Of course I was correct.
But you still deny the concept of forcings.
It's an inconvenient concept for deniers.
The Sun is the most powerful forcing of all.
It's just not the only one.

Did you bother to read or consider my comment about how greenhouse gasses were also important in maintaining a livable environment?
I gave a link.
I suspect it was inconvenient for you 



> Criticize the source of the graph


I suspect anyone reading this thread realizes you never read that web site after they viewed it. ... ....



> regardless if the graph is correct, or not. But yeah, Google image search. I know how you love the graphs.


I do lol!
But yours was incredibly lacking in detail.
Even Wikipedia was far better 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg


----------



## Johnny b

What would Tony think? ( rhetorical  )

Scare tactics or reality?
(IMO, potentially a scary reality)

* Acidifying oceans could eat away at sharks' skin and teeth *
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/12/acidifying-oceans-could-eat-away-at-sharks-skin-and-teeth/

An interesting article on the potential devastation of one of the fiercest ocean dwellers that has a long evolutionary history of stability.
But the last paragraph stands out ( at least to me ).



> Rocha adds that the 7.3 pH value the researchers used is quite acidic. "It's probably not going to be an average for the ocean, even in 2300," he says. "Unless instead of slowing down, we continue racking up the amount of greenhouse gases that we're dumping in the atmosphere."
> 
> "If it drops to 7.3, we are doomed," Rocha adds. "Everything is going to fall apart, not just sharks." Anything with a shell won't be able to form that shell-think corals and bivalves like clams and tiny shelled phytoplankton that make up the base of *the food chain*. Sharks' ecosystems will have devolved into chaos.


----------



## Johnny b

* Thawing permafrost affecting northern Alaska's land-to-ocean river flows *

https://www.innovations-report.com/...thern-alaska-s-land-to-ocean-river-flows.html



> First author and lead climate modeler Michael Rawlins, associate professor of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and associate director of its Climate Systems Research Center, says warming is expected to shift the Arctic from a surface water-dominated system to a groundwater-dominated system, with deeper water flow paths through newly thawed soils.
> 
> "Our model estimates of permafrost thaw are consistent with the notion that permafrost region ecosystems are shifting from a net sink to a net source of carbon," he says.


----------



## Johnny b

*Tiny shells reveal waters off California are acidifying twice as fast as the global ocean *

https://www.innovations-report.com/...ifying-twice-as-fast-as-the-global-ocean.html



> In first-of-its-kind research, NOAA scientists and academic partners used 100 years of microscopic shells to show that the coastal waters off California are acidifying twice as fast as the global ocean average -- with the seafood supply in the crosshairs.





> Every day, the shells of dead foraminifera rain down on the ocean floor and are eventually covered by sediment. Layers of sediment containing shells form a vertical record of change.
> .....
> "By measuring the thickness of the shells, we can provide a very accurate estimate of the ocean's acidity level when the foraminifera were alive," said lead author Emily Osborne, who used this novel technique to produce the longest record yet created of ocean acidification using directly measured marine species. She measured shells within cores that represented deposits dating back to 1895.


There is also a natural component.



> Though the waters increased their overall acidity over time, the shells revealed decade-long changes in the rise and fall of acidity.
> 
> This pattern matched the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural warming and cooling cycle. Human-caused carbon dioxide emissions are driving ocean acidification, but this natural variation also plays an important role in alleviating or amplifying ocean acidification.


----------



## Johnny b

* Shrinking of Greenland's glaciers began accelerating in 2000, research finds *

https://news.osu.edu/shrinking-of-greenlands-glaciers-began-accelerating-in-2000-research-finds/

Too much detail to copy and paste with out having to post the entire article..


----------



## Johnny b

New study on closing coal fired utilities shows localized improvements on health, death rates and increased agricultural productivity .

* Ditching coal in the US is saving lives, helping crops *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...al-to-natural-gas-avoided-25000-deathsdecade/

Researcher Jennifer Burney:
http://gps.ucsd.edu/faculty-directory/jennifer-burney.html



> Near shuttered plants, deaths drop and crop productivity rises.


Too much to copy and paste.
But this stood out:


> Translating those numbers to apply to the remaining coal plants, Burney found that even for the conservative 25km estimate, they caused about 330,000 premature deaths and a loss of 10 billion bushels of crops over the decade she studied. For reference, she notes that the crop loss is roughly equivalent to a half-year's production; it's also equivalent to five percent of the total US harvests over that decade.


( Let the denials begin  )


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> New study on closing coal fired utilities shows localized improvements on health, death rates and increased agricultural productivity .
> 
> * Ditching coal in the US is saving lives, helping crops *
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/us-switch-from-co]al-to-natural-gas-avoided-25000-deathsdecade/
> 
> Researcher Jennifer Burney:
> http://gps.ucsd.edu/faculty-directory/jennifer-burney.html
> 
> Too much to copy and paste.
> But this stood out:
> 
> ( Let the denials begin  )


I thought this thread was about Global Warming; but, okie dokie. 

Let's see... These so called *coal related premature deaths *are definitely based upon speculation and possible associations at best. Ok, so for discussions sake, let us assume that these speculative deaths are all factual and all actually occur.

Within the article, I do not see any correlation between the coal plant closures and the impact to the local populations in the area. This impact would affect not only the employees of the coal plants; but, also employment of local businesses that support the community and the business supply chains in the local area that support the specific coal plant. Also note that the article only denotes a 1% mortality variance, so at a minimum, more research towards actual correlation and causality is needed here.


> All cause mortality in the counties closest to the closed plant dropped by a percent, with the elderly being the largest beneficiaries.


Now, minus the Global Warming bunk, the pollution concerns are legitimate, and interestingly show that the pollution concerns are significantly reduced with the creation of newer coal/natural gas plants.


> One of the interesting things she found was that the opening of new plants wasn't correlated with any statistically significant changes. She suggests that this is likely the result of the fact that the newer plants adopt the latest pollution-control technology and therefore have a lower impact on the surrounding communities.


The crop production is the piece that gathered more of my interest; however, again we have a lack of thorough data to understand if the closing of the individual coal plant resulted in a percentage of the local populace turning to, or increasing, agricultural production as an alternative/supplemental revenue stream.

The article raises valid questions; however, the statements of impact are heavily lacking supportive data (exactly what I would expect from the CAGW crowd).... Denounce coal, natural gas, nuclear, and dam based hydroponic energy production at every opportunity and claim that renewal energy is the only true solution; but, they have no idea on how to replace the loss of energy production that would result from shuttering these established energy production methods.


----------



## Johnny b

Thank you 

As I expected. lol!


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I thought this thread was about Global Warming; but, okie dokie.
> 
> Let's see... These so called *coal related premature deaths *are definitely based upon speculation and possible associations at best. Ok, so for discussions sake, let us assume that these speculative deaths are all factual and all actually occur.
> 
> Within the article, I do not see any correlation between the coal plant closures and the impact to the local populations in the area. This impact would affect not only the employees of the coal plants; but, also employment of local businesses that support the community and the business supply chains in the local area that support the specific coal plant. Also note that the article only denotes a 1% mortality variance, so at a minimum, more research towards actual correlation and causality is needed here.
> 
> Now, minus the Global Warming bunk, the pollution concerns are legitimate, and interestingly show that the pollution concerns are significantly reduced with the creation of newer coal/natural gas plants.
> 
> The crop production is the piece that gathered more of my interest; however, again we have a lack of thorough data to understand if the closing of the individual coal plant resulted in a percentage of the local populace turning to, or increasing, agricultural production as an alternative/supplemental revenue stream.
> 
> The article raises valid questions; however, the statements of impact are heavily lacking supportive data (exactly what I would expect from the CAGW crowd).... Denounce coal, natural gas, nuclear, and dam based hydroponic energy production at every opportunity and claim that renewal energy is the only true solution; but, they have no idea on how to replace the loss of energy production that would result from shuttering these established energy production methods.





> Let's see... These so called *coal related premature deaths *are definitely based upon speculation and possible associations at best.


Let's see.....Trumptonian logic dictates the daily weather change ( when it's cooling of course lol ) is an argument in rebuttal of global warming, but a decade of local reduced death rate has no meaning when it's associated with cleaner air?

Hmmm...........



> I do not see any correlation between the coal plant closures and the impact to the local populations in the area.


Cleaner air might be a cause? (  )



> Also note that the article only denotes a 1% mortality variance, so at a minimum, more research towards actual correlation and causality is needed here.


Indeed, like who really cares that 1% represents about 330,000 deaths as long as the survivors can be fooled into re-electing a buffoon?
With the coal industry going bankrupt, something must be done and denial is just soooo logical. 

* Even Trump Can't Keep Coal Companies From Declaring Bankruptcy *
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckj...eep-coal-companies-from-declaring-bankruptcy/

Remember how much I liked graphs? lol.
Here you go:





















> .... crop production is the piece that gathered more of my interest; however, again we have a lack of thorough data to understand if the closing of the individual coal plant resulted in a percentage of the local populace turning to, or increasing, agricultural production as an alternative/supplemental revenue stream.


What? 
Jack.....there is only so much land available for agriculture and I'm not aware of God planning to create any more.
Additional people farming a given area only creates more smaller farms, not a bigger agricultural base.
Generally, productivity increases with the size of the farm.

* Productivity Increases With Farm Size in the Heartland Region *
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-wave...eases-with-farm-size-in-the-heartland-region/

LOL!
Your logic is an argument for inefficiencies. 



> ...... exactly what I would expect from the CAGW crowd).... Denounce coal, natural gas, nuclear, and dam based hydroponic energy production at every opportunity and claim that renewal energy is the only true solution; but, they have no idea on how to replace the loss of energy production that would result from shuttering these established energy production methods.


Well......lol.....I don't know which CAGW crowd you are referring to, AOC, Sanders or Warren maybe, but this one is focused on coal. As are most reasonable people .

Usage is shifting away from coal. 
Even with Trump embracing increased pollution.
Natural gas and renewables aren't just picking up the slack, because their technologies are more profitable they are replacing coal. 
When was the last time you remember reading of major brownouts? 

Trump's support of coal is/was obviously a pandering for votes.
I don't hear much from Trump these days on supporting the coal industry, he has more important things on his mind now.


----------



## Johnny b

Donny's Off his meds again!

* Trump Admits Climate Change Is 'Not a Hoax' After Proposing Rollback of Environmental Law *
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...after-proposing-rollback-of-environmental-law



> President Trump said during a White House briefing on Thursday that he is a "big believer" in climate change and that it is "not a hoax" soon after his administration announced a plan to overhaul an environmental policy act.


 I sense a contradiction 

I wonder if Fox News is reporting anything like this?


----------



## Johnny b

Warming in the Himalayas.
It's more than just increased ice and snow melt from warming temperatures.

* Plants are growing higher up Mount Everest as the climate warms *
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...m_source=NSNS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=news



> More plants are living higher on the slopes of Mount Everest and surrounding mountains than 25 years ago, according to a study of satellite data.
> 
> The extra growth may have wider impacts, particularly on the flow of water into the rivers that flow down from the Himalayas, says Karen Anderson of the University of Exeter, UK. "If the ecology is changing, that will have impacts on the hydrology. Nobody's considered that before."


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Cleaner air might be a cause? (  )


I think you are misunderstanding my previous observation so I shall clarify for your benefit.  The study, as related to deaths associated by coal pollution, does not take into account population shifts away from the area after the coal plant in question has closed. This information is needed to properly understand the true impact when we assume that all of the supposed deaths from coal pollution would have actually occurred and have been proven to be caused by the said coal pollution.


Johnny b said:


> Indeed, like who really cares that 1% represents about 330,000 deaths as long as the survivors can be fooled into re-electing a buffoon?
> With the coal industry going bankrupt, something must be done and denial is just soooo logical.


See the previous comment. 


Johnny b said:


> What?
> Jack.....there is only so much land available for agriculture and I'm not aware of God planning to create any more.
> Additional people farming a given area only creates more smaller farms, not a bigger agricultural base.
> Generally, productivity increases with the size of the farm.
> 
> * Productivity Increases With Farm Size in the Heartland Region *
> https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-wave...eases-with-farm-size-in-the-heartland-region/
> 
> LOL!
> Your logic is an argument for inefficiencies.


Well, in rural areas near coal mines there is often a good bit of farmable land that lies unused due to individuals working in the mining industry instead of farming. When the mining jobs go away, individuals wanting to stay in the area will often farm their previously unused land as a supplemental income.

Regardless though, the observed increase in farming bounty lines up with national crop production increases from 2005 - 2016. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/croptr18.pdf



Johnny b said:


> Usage is shifting away from coal.
> Even with Trump embracing increased pollution.
> Natural gas and renewables aren't just picking up the slack, because their technologies are more profitable they are replacing coal.
> When was the last time you remember reading of major brownouts?


Ummm…. October. I think it was an article in Forbes concerning the California blackout/brownouts to prevent wild fires; however, the article also discussed what Forbes called predictable power interruptions due to a lack of production/stored electricity caused by not using fossil fuels.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Warming in the Himalayas.
> It's more than just increased ice and snow melt from warming temperatures.
> 
> * Plants are growing higher up Mount Everest as the climate warms *
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2229618-plants-are-growing-higher-up-mount-everest-as-the-climate-warms/?utm_campaign=RSS|NSNS&utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=RSS&utm_content=news


Yeah. Too bad Glacier park had to take down those signs saying that there would be no more glaciers at the park by 2020.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I think you are misunderstanding my previous observation so I shall clarify for your benefit.  The study, as related to deaths associated by coal pollution, does not take into account population shifts away from the area after the coal plant in question has closed. This information is needed to properly understand the true impact when we assume that all of the supposed deaths from coal pollution would have actually occurred and have been proven to be caused by the said coal pollution.
> 
> See the previous comment.
> 
> Well, in rural areas near coal mines there is often a good bit of farmable land that lies unused due to individuals working in the mining industry instead of farming. When the mining jobs go away, individuals wanting to stay in the area will often farm their previously unused land as a supplemental income.
> 
> Regardless though, the observed increase in farming bounty lines up with national crop production increases from 2005 - 2016. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/croptr18.pdf
> 
> Ummm…. October. I think it was an article in Forbes concerning the California blackout/brownouts to prevent wild fires; however, the article also discussed what Forbes called predictable power interruptions due to a lack of production/stored electricity caused by not using fossil fuels.





> I think you are misunderstanding my previous observation so I shall clarify for your benefit.  The study, as related to deaths associated by coal pollution, does not take into account population shifts away from the area after the coal plant in question has closed.


You do realize that the article is addressing coal fired utilities, not coal mining?
The jobs lost are mainly in the mining sector.
Be it nuclear, natural gas, hydro, air or sun, jobs continue to exist in the generation of electricity.



> Well, in rural areas near coal mines there is often a good bit of farmable land that lies unused due to individuals working in the mining industry instead of farming.


I don't see any linkage or statistics 
What a bunch of bunk lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/coal-other-dark-side-toxic-ash/

( China )
https://www.economist.com/briefing/...hreat-to-public-health-in-china-is-toxic-soil

https://e360.yale.edu/features/from-canadian-coal-mines-toxic-pollution-that-knows-no-borders

And on and on, Jack.
I call BS.

Simply do a Google image search for "coal strip mines"

Do you even see much potentially arable land around these sites?
Do you know what arable land is?

You simply make up stuff.



> Regardless though, the observed increase in farming bounty lines up with national crop production increases from 2005 - 2016. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/croptr18.pdf


There seems to be nothing in that large PDF relating to agriculture adjacent to coal mining or coal fired utility plants.
This is typical of Trumpism.
Fallacious and intellectually dishonest comparisons apart from the fact that you used a 240 page PDF as a time waster.

There is a reality to coal. Those that work in that industry are going to lose jobs.
That is what happens to failing industries in a capitalistic economic model.
Socialism is usually seen as the malevolent actor that perpetuates those inefficiencies, leading to economic failure.
Currently, it's a malevolent opportunist posing as a conservative.



> October. I think it was an article in Forbes concerning the California blackout/brownouts to prevent wild fires



You mean this one?
* Do California's Blackouts Signal What's In Store For All Americans? *
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenr...outs-signal-whats-in-store-for-all-americans/

Read it carefully 
It's about curtailing fossil fuel usage as an absolute.
That's not what is currently happening.
Coal is being replaced with more efficient cost effective and environmentally friendly alternatives and one of them is a fossil fuel.



> Hydropower is a great, relatively environmentally friendly option, but it is also expensive to build. Solar and wind power are not efficient enough to replace fossil fuels. Thus we still use natural gas, coal and even oil to produce power.


Coal is the current issue and it's the utility industries replacing it, not legislation.
We've discussed this before and I've provided linkage to back that up.

To force a business /industry to accept a government economic model favoring inefficiencies for political reasons ( elect-ability ) is hardly capitalistic.

New and improved technologies have changed the utility landscape:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-expensive-than-wind-solar-energy/1277637001/



> Prices per megawatt hour from electricity for coal-fired power plants range from a low of $60 to a high of $143, according to Lazard, a financial advisory firm that publishes annual estimates of the total cost of producing electricity. This is the levelized cost, which includes the cost to build, operate, fuel and maintain a power plant.
> 
> Wind is significantly cheaper: Unsubsidized, levelized prices per megawatt hour of electricity from wind range from $29 to $56,
> 
> For solar electricity, unsubsidized, levelized prices range from $40 to $46, according to Lazard figures. In 2010, the average was closer to $120 per megawatt hour, said Mark Bolinger, a research scientist with the electric markets and policy group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Berkeley Lab conducts scientific research on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy.
> 
> The cost to produce a megawatt hour of electricity from natural gas ranges from $41 to $74, according to Lazard.





> "We're retiring a coal plant every month. Coal will all be gone by 2030," said Bruce Nilles, a managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute,( edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Institute ) a think tank in Colorado that focuses on energy and resource efficiency.


:up:


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Yeah. Too bad Glacier park had to take down those signs saying that there would be no more glaciers at the park by 2020.


And you some how think that denies global warming?

Their glaciers are still shrinking. Faulty weather predictions lol.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html


> In 2017, a study released by USGS and Portland State University said that in the past half century, some of the ice formations in Montana had lost 85% of their size and the average shrinkage was 39%.


I'm surprised you didn't quote temperatures in some part of the world where it was cooler than usual yesterday


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Simply do a Google image search for "coal strip mines"
> 
> Do you even see much potentially arable land around these sites?
> Do you know what arable land is?


I see that you have overlooked that the conducted study was for the surrounding 25 mile and 100 mile radius. 


Johnny b said:


> There seems to be nothing in that large PDF relating to agriculture adjacent to coal mining or coal fired utility plants.
> This is typical of Trumpism.
> Fallacious and intellectually dishonest comparisons apart from the fact that you used a 240 page PDF as a time waster.


 Nice attempt at misrepresentation here.  As per my statement the PDF is supporting that the US National food production increase is in line with the food production increase surrounding coal facilities. This shows that your originally referenced article is either a deliberate smear on coal production facilities, or a result of gross negligence on the part of the author.



Johnny b said:


> There is a reality to coal. Those that work in that industry are going to lose jobs.
> That is what happens to failing industries in a capitalistic economic model.
> Socialism is usually seen as the malevolent actor that perpetuates those inefficiencies, leading to economic failure.
> Currently, it's a malevolent opportunist posing as a conservative.


On this we agree at a high level; however, I am not in favor of any administration giving one business a competitive advantage over another business. If coal fails economically that is fine by me; but, the playing field needs to be level.



Johnny b said:


> And you some how think that denies global warming?
> 
> Their glaciers are still shrinking. Faulty weather predictions lol.


 Nah! It does not deny Global Warming, rather it mocks the entire lie that the planet is at the point of no return, thus the predictions are continuously pushed back 10-15 years every time these predictions fail to come true.


----------



## Chawbacon

> Venice Canals Almost Run Dry Just Two Months After Flooding
> https://news.sky.com/story/venice-canals-almost-run-dry-just-two-months-after-flooding-11907106
> 
> Just weeks after serious flooding caused widespread damage, the famous canals of Venice have been left almost completely dry due to exceptionally low tides.


So, according to the Global Warming Believers, the ocean is supposed to be on a rising path that cannot be altered without returning to almost stone age labor techniques. Now, how do these low water level canals in Venice line up with the whole CAGW theory?  Oh right... It doesn't!


----------



## Chawbacon

DANG! Where Did This Forest Come From? 

Hidden for 1,000 years under a glacier. My understanding is that it takes a Spruce tree between 35-50 years to grow to maturity, so watch out for that Global Warming! It's gonna destroy the world! 



> Ancient forest revealed 1,000 years after being 'entombed' in gravel as Alaskan glacier melts
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...l-Glacier-melting-reveals-ancient-forest.html
> 
> An ancient forest which is thought to have been hidden for at least 1,000 years has been discovered beneath a melting glacier.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I see that you have overlooked that the conducted study was for the surrounding 25 mile and 100 mile radius.
> Nice attempt at misrepresentation here.  As per my statement the PDF is supporting that the US National food production increase is in line with the food production increase surrounding coal facilities. This shows that your originally referenced article is either a deliberate smear on coal production facilities, or a result of gross negligence on the part of the author.
> 
> On this we agree at a high level; however, I am not in favor of any administration giving one business a competitive advantage over another business. If coal fails economically that is fine by me; but, the playing field needs to be level.
> 
> Nah! It does not deny Global Warming, rather it mocks the entire lie that the planet is at the point of no return, thus the predictions are continuously pushed back 10-15 years every time these predictions fail to come true.





> I see that you have overlooked that the conducted study was for the surrounding 25 mile and 100 mile radius.
> Nice attempt at misrepresentation here.


Not at all.
Strip mining simply doesn't often occur in agricultural settings.



> As per my statement the PDF is supporting that the US National food production increase is in line with the food production increase surrounding coal facilities.


No, it didn't.
What do you think the term 'National' means 
And I pointed out earlier that it was large agri business that excelled in productivity and guess were large ari business isn't.......coal country  ... 



> If coal fails economically that is fine by me; but, the playing field needs to be level.


You are simply delusional, Jack.
Are you starting to believe what you post?
I gave you the stats on the cost to produce electricity. Coal is a fail.
Trump is not able to save the coal industry.
Unless he goes totalitarian on us.



> This shows that your originally referenced article is either a deliberate smear on coal production facilities, or a result of gross negligence on the part of the author.


That's just sour grapes, Jack 



> Nah! It does not deny Global Warming, rather it mocks the entire lie that the planet is at the point of no return


Wrong web site, Jack.
You need to be haranguing those over at AOC.com/socialists/we_are_idiots.

This thread isn't about political solutions, Jack. It's about the science of the event.
Denial simply isn't scientifically acceptable with out facts......scientific facts and data.



> thus the predictions are continuously pushed back 10-15 years every time these predictions fail to come true.


Talk about distortions lol.
You complain global warming isn't happening as fast as early predictions.
But it is happening, and the data shows it.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> So, according to the Global Warming Believers, the ocean is supposed to be on a rising path that cannot be altered without returning to almost stone age labor techniques. Now, how do these low water level canals in Venice line up with the whole CAGW theory?  Oh right... It doesn't!




High temps and evaporation?



Nope, but if you read this link, you'll find the factors that cause the flooding
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7620018/venice-sink-flood/



> Venice experiences a phenomenon "acqua alta" or "high water" due to exceptional tide peaks in the Adriatric Sea.
> 
> The tidal peaks reach their maximum level in the Venetian Lagoon, which runs around and through the city, causing flooding in the region.
> 
> The causes of the tidal peaks are down to a number of factors, including the movement and phase of the moon, wind strengths and direction as well as rain level and rising sea-levels.
> 
> The flooding levels vary across the city due to varying altitudes above sea level, plus heights of pavements and distance from channels.


And this which probably went over your head:

https://news.sky.com/story/venice-canals-almost-run-dry-just-two-months-after-flooding-11907106



> Just weeks after serious flooding caused widespread damage, the famous canals of Venice have been left almost completely dry due to exceptionally low tides.


Weeks after serious flooding, the canals go dry.
Seriously. do you really think any kind of climate change can make those canals run dry in just a few weeks?

Well, maybe you do <sigh!  >


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> DANG! Where Did This Forest Come From?
> 
> Hidden for 1,000 years under a glacier. My understanding is that it takes a Spruce tree between 35-50 years to grow to maturity, so watch out for that Global Warming! It's gonna destroy the world!


What? 

Have you been conversing with Tony?


----------



## Johnny b

While anti-capitalistic opportunists back the coal industry, largely for political reasons, this is happening in the realm of capitalism.
Investment firm BlackRock, with 7 trillion dollars in assets, is recognizing sustainability as a criteria in association with global warming.
The coal industry's business model does not look sustainable and investments are being pulled out/reduced.

* Major investment firm to prioritize sustainability, back off coal *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...m-to-prioritize-sustainability-back-off-coal/



> Divestment campaigns have started to change that, causing $12 trillion in assets to be pulled from businesses dependent upon fossil fuels. But the movement may have picked up some significant additional momentum this week as one of the largest investment firms, BlackRock, announced that it will be making sustainability, and climate change in particular, central to its strategies. Included in its announcement is that it would immediately begin pulling out of many coal investments and complete the change before the year is out.





Chawbacon said:


> ..............
> 
> If coal fails economically that is fine by me; but, the playing field needs to be level.
> 
> ...


You need to make up your mind, Jack. 
How can the coal industry be economically supported through legislation to the disadvantage of competitive technologies and the 'playing field' still be 'level'?

Do you support a capitalistic economic model or not?


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> While anti-capitalistic opportunists back the coal industry, largely for political reasons, this is happening in the realm of capitalism.
> Investment firm BlackRock, with 7 trillion dollars in assets, is recognizing sustainability as a criteria in association with global warming.
> The coal industry's business model does not look sustainable and investments are being pulled out/reduced.
> 
> * Major investment firm to prioritize sustainability, back off coal *
> https://arstechnica.com/science/202...m-to-prioritize-sustainability-back-off-coal/
> 
> You need to make up your mind, Jack.
> How can the coal industry be economically supported through legislation to the disadvantage of competitive technologies and the 'playing field' still be 'level'?
> 
> Do you support a capitalistic economic model or not?


I thought you would have figured out my position on this by now Johnny. 

I have no interest about whether coal, gas, wind, water, nuclear, etc... succeeds, or not; subsequently, I do not believe that any private organization should be subsidized, or over regulated, by the government. During the Obama administration the coal industry was significantly punished through overregulation, and the Trump administration has correctly taken steps to roll back many of these regulations implemented during the Obama administration.

So yeah. I definitely support a capitalistic economic model.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> I thought you would have figured out my position on this by now Johnny.
> 
> I have no interest about whether coal, gas, wind, water, nuclear, etc... succeeds, or not; ......


then why the heck are you debating in a climate change discussion? These are all key factors, be it positive or negative, in the future of anthropological climate change. Wind and solar are obviously more carbon neutral. Coal more carbon heavy.

Having no interest is akin to saying you have nothing to say that matters.

Just my nickels worth.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I thought you would have figured out my position on this by now Johnny.
> 
> I have no interest about whether coal, gas, wind, water, nuclear, etc... succeeds, or not; subsequently, I do not believe that any private organization should be subsidized, or over regulated, by the government. During the Obama administration the coal industry was significantly punished through overregulation, and the Trump administration has correctly taken steps to roll back many of these regulations implemented during the Obama administration.
> 
> So yeah. I definitely support a capitalistic economic model.





> I thought you would have figured out my position on this by now Johnny.


I did, long ago. Jack.
Convenience of debate seems an issue.

And it's political.
You frequently parrot the current buzz words of the Trumptionian/Nationalist party.



> I have no interest about whether coal, gas, wind, water, nuclear, etc... succeeds, or not


Then as Tim pointed out, why are you posting in this thread concerning the type of fuel used to power utilities?
Logically, your interest should go to economics but you reject the facts put before you.



> I do not believe that any private organization should be subsidized



About 'subsidizing', lol!
You rationalize away the public and US businesses being forced to subsidize Trump's trade war against the world.
How convenient.

Do you dislike farmers, also?
Lots to talk about there with price supports, soil bank, parity and now a trade war they have to help 'pay' for.

Convenience.



> During the Obama administration the coal industry was significantly punished through overregulation


You keep posting that knowing it didn't happen. There is a description for that. The one that follows Trump where ever he goes (  ). ( I'll let you figure that one out  )

What a short memory (  )
From a previous post of mine:

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-24#post-9642104


> BTW Obama's Clean Power Plan was never enacted.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...wer-plant-rule-in-boost-to-coal-idUSKCN1TK12V
> 
> 
> 
> * Obama's Clean Power Plan, by contrast, had aimed to slash power plant carbon emissions by more than a third from 2005 levels by 2030 by pushing utilities to drop coal in favor of cleaner fuels like natural gas, solar and wind.
> 
> That regulation was never enacted because of lawsuits by Republican states. *
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Power_Plan#Court_challenge
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument has no value
Click to expand...

Or have have you again forgotten those 'details'  ?



> So yeah. I definitely support a capitalistic economic model.


When it's convenient.


----------



## Johnny b

The other side of the coin 

As much as I support reducing greenhouse gas emissions and support the science behind global warming/climate change, what I read in USAToday is the wrong message if practical solutions are to be applied.

First, man's addition to the complexity of global temp/climate change is small compared to natural forces. It is, however, an element that speeds up the effect, as an additional influence/forcing.
IMO. There is no practical way to control those natural processes, only man's 
influence.
From that, global warming(or cooling)/climate change can not be stopped, it can only be slowed down and relies on man's input as to how much change occurs over time.

Second.
There will always be man-made emissions.
If every device, every mode of transportation, every factory, every endeavor of mankind were electrified, there would still be a need for electrical generation.
For that, a manufacturing process to build and maintain.
For every manufacturing process, no matter the source of energy, emissions will be given off.
And on and on and on.....etc, etc, etc.
The emissions will be lesser as fewer activities require an oxidation process for energy.
But not completely eliminated.

The point, there is a practical limitation. Reality. Activities of man give off greenhouse emissions, some more, some less, some extreme and unnecessarily polluting.
To achieve zero emissions is to cripple civilization.
To needlessly pollute is to harm it.

There is a point, perhaps arbitrary, where efficient and wise use of technologies and natural resources offsets much of that needless harm, but there will always be a need for factories, agriculture, transportation and support that a civilization needs to be viable.

We acquire these needed man made things/services to survive. Both as a society and a civilization.

But what we have in major discussions of the topic are two polarized sides, one arguing for profiteering, the other for political/social control of our lives.
Pragmatism becomes a dirty word in both camps.

There is no such thing as zero man made emissions in a world of humans.

So, what did I read in USAToday?

* Greta Thunberg: 'Pretty much nothing' has been done about climate crisis *
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/greta-thunberg-davos-2020-panel-075638471.html



> Thunberg said people must "start listening to the science" and "start treating this crisis as the crisis it is."
> 
> Thunberg urged world leaders and the media to take climate change more seriously, warning the planet has just eight year's worth of 'carbon budget' left to avoid dangerous warming to the globe over the next 100 years.
> 
> "These numbers aren't people's opinions or political views, this is the current best available science," she said in prepared remarks at the end of the session.
> 
> ( edit: and then! )
> 
> "Richer countries need to get down to zero emissions much faster and then help poorer countries do the same."


* "Richer countries need to get down to zero emissions much faster and then help poorer countries do the same." *

A child, well coached in buzz words about a serious problem, winds up her argument with an impossible directive that is the fuel of the socialist movement.

That's not problem solving.
It's just some kid well versed in rhetoric but lacking in critical thinking, which isn't uncommon at that age. ( and a lot of other ages as well  )

(end of rant)


----------



## Johnny b

Another greenhouse gas:

* Substantial twentieth-century Arctic warming caused by ozone-depleting substances *

Abstract ( there is a paywall for the detailed report ):


> While the dominant role of carbon dioxide is undisputed, another important set of anthropogenic GHGs was also being emitted over the second half of the twentieth century: ozone-depleting2 substances (ODS). These compounds, in addition to causing the ozone hole over Antarctica, have long been recognized3 as powerful GHGs. However, their contribution to Arctic warming has not been quantified. We do so here by analysing ensembles of climate model integrations specifically designed for this purpose, spanning the period 1955-2005 when atmospheric concentrations of ODS increased rapidly.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0677-4

Also see:
https://www.innovations-report.com/...e-20th-century-arctic-warming-says-study.html


----------



## Johnny b

* NASA, NOAA analyses reveal 2019 second warmest year on record *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...eveal-2019-second-warmest-year-on-record.html



> Globally, 2019 temperatures were second only to those of 2016 and continued the planet's long-term warming trend: the past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.
> This past year, they were 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (0.98 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.
> 
> "The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record," said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. "Every decade since the 1960s clearly has been warmer than the one before."


Here's a graph for Jack


----------



## Johnny b

If anyone missed my rant on Thunberg, here's why I think her argument is not effective in addressing the global warming/climate change and does more harm than good:



> Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin tells climate change activist Greta Thunberg to get an economics degree


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eta-thunberg-get-economics-degree/4551092002/

She's easily attacked by right wing deniers and only further polarizes the topic, on political grounds.
She hasn't a clue as to the effect of an absolute zero emissions policy on economics.
It pleases left wingers and socialists and those equally with out a clue, with little positive effect on the problem.


----------



## Johnny b

Side effects:

* As sea levels rise, little of the United States will be unaffected *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ttle-of-the-united-states-will-be-unaffected/



> If you're not near the coast, get ready for lots of new neighbors.
> 
> The United States is rich enough, industrialized enough, and far enough from the tropics that the rising temperatures of our changing climate aren't going to make any place uninhabitable. But a side effect of those rising temperatures-rising oceans-most certainly will. Already, an ever-growing list of places are facing what's called "nuisance flooding," in which even a high tide can leave streets underwater. Major storms just make matters worse. And, by the end of this century, the expected rise of the oceans may be over five times what we saw last century.


(Hey Jack?
Maybe you ought to check the elevation where you live in Georgia?
Now's the time to invest in property half way up the Rockies!

 )


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> then why the heck are you debating in a climate change discussion? These are all key factors, be it positive or negative, in the future of anthropological climate change. Wind and solar are obviously more carbon neutral. Coal more carbon heavy.
> 
> Having no interest is akin to saying you have nothing to say that matters.
> 
> Just my nickels worth.


An understandable position Valis. Please understand that Johnny had shifted the conversation towards coal and economics and that particular statement was in response to economic conditions influenced by the government that may favor one energy industry over another. Simply put, I am not in favor of our government picking, choosing, or unduly influencing the winners/losers in any industry.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Or have have you again forgotten those 'details'  ?


Nah. Not forgotten. Just remember that Obama fully supported the EPA efforts (and efforts by other government agencies) that directly impacted the fossil fuel industry; and you seem to have overlooked that projected laws often spook investors and long term planning by the companies affected. All of which affected the viability of fossil fuel energy companies. All Trump has really done is level the playing field bit on the economic issue; however, as indicated prior, relaxing regulations on retention ponds will not have my support. 


Johnny b said:


> Side effects:
> 
> * As sea levels rise, little of the United States will be unaffected *
> https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ttle-of-the-united-states-will-be-unaffected/
> 
> (Hey Jack?
> Maybe you ought to check the elevation where you live in Georgia?
> Now's the time to invest in property half way up the Rockies!
> 
> )


No worries! I have relocated to the other side of the Rockies.


----------



## valis

Chawbacon said:


> An understandable position Valis. Please understand that Johnny had shifted the conversation towards coal and economics and that particular statement was in response to economic conditions influenced by the government that may favor one energy industry over another. Simply put, I am not in favor of our government picking, choosing, or unduly influencing the winners/losers in any industry.


It is moot at best; for you to state you have no interest in the success of alternative sources. This is not about industry or politics....this is the global future and ignoring it wont make it go away regardless of how much money is involved.

I do not think you grasp this, and no offense intended. It isnt politics, or industry; this is reality happening currently all around us.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> An understandable position Valis. Please understand that Johnny had shifted the conversation towards coal and economics and that particular statement was in response to economic conditions influenced by the government that may favor one energy industry over another. Simply put, I am not in favor of our government picking, choosing, or unduly influencing the winners/losers in any industry.


No sir.
Sean brought up the topic of coal being replaced by eco friendly alternatives here:

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-22#post-9639272

You quoted him and started an incorrect tirade on Obama claiming he was the reason for coal being non competitive. Here:

https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/page-22#post-9639396



> President Obama that pretty much drove a wooden steak through the heart of the coal industry. It is my understanding that the U.S. was already leading the world in clean coal initiatives; so it seems to me that additional regulations on the coal industry (that practically made coal production a net profit loss) were unnecessary and unwise.


And I've repeatedly pointed out from several reputable sources, your understanding was pure BS receptivity.
And you've kept making the same claim.

Where's the beef?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Nah. Not forgotten. Just remember that Obama fully supported the EPA efforts (and efforts by other government agencies) that directly impacted the fossil fuel industry; and you seem to have overlooked that projected laws often spook investors and long term planning by the companies affected. All of which affected the viability of fossil fuel energy companies. All Trump has really done is level the playing field bit on the economic issue; however, as indicated prior, relaxing regulations on retention ponds will not have my support.
> 
> .......................


And you keep denying reality.
Obama's plans were never put into effect.
I cited sources.
This is just another instance of you making the same statement after being repeatedly refuted.



> All Trump has really done is level the playing field bit on the economic issue....


The playing field was level. Still is, actually.
I gave reputable sources showing coal is a more expensive fuel.
You just don't like it.
Well, obviously Trump doesn't either because he's been ignoring the mine closings, the laid off mine workers and the coal fired utilities being replaced with alternative and less expensive means. There isn't much he can do about it till he becomes President for Life.

Alternative fuels have to meet the same clean air standards as coal.
They can simply do it cheaper.

And with emission standards now relaxed, coal still isn't economically competitive as I've pointed out many times.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> It is moot at best; for you to state you have no interest in the success of alternative sources. This is not about industry or politics....this is the global future and ignoring it wont make it go away regardless of how much money is involved.
> 
> I do not think you grasp this, and no offense intended. It isnt politics, or industry; this is reality happening currently all around us.


Tim.

Jack's a confused Trumper.

Their reality starts with a message on a red ball cap.......and pretty much ends there


----------



## valis

It is reality; to me it is like driving into a brick wall and refusing to acknowledge it.

At some point, it does not matter if you acknowledge it; you still get pancaked.


----------



## Johnny b

Jack! 



> US government sees renewables passing natural gas in 20 years


https://arstechnica.com/science/202...s-renewables-passing-natural-gas-in-20-years/



> The report expects that demand will only ramp up slowly over the course of the next few decades. One consequence is that less economic forms of electricity production will be squeezed out of the market by the growth of natural gas and renewables. All but the largest and most efficient coal and nuclear plants are expected to be shut by 2030.


( coal stinks  )


----------



## Johnny b

Antarctic glacial melt back in the news.

* Robotic submarine snaps first-ever images at foundation of notorious Antarctic glacier *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...oundation-of-notorious-antarctic-glacier.html



> Over the past 30 years, the amount of ice flowing to the sea from Thwaites and its neighboring glaciers has nearly doubled.
> 
> "While Greenland's contribution to sea level has already reached an alarming rate, Antarctica is just now picking up its contributions to sea level," Schmidt said. "It has the largest body of ice on Earth and will contribute more and more of sea level rise over the next 100 years and beyond. It's a massive source of uncertainty in the climate system."


* Warm water discovered beneath Antarctica's 'doomsday' glacier, scientists say *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...discovered-below-doomsday-glacier/4621838002/



> "Warm waters in this part of the world, as remote as they may seem, should serve as a warning to all of us about the potential dire changes to the planet brought about by climate change," said David Holland, director of New York University's Environmental Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, which conducted the research.


----------



## Johnny b

At the other end of Earth, news concerning Arctic glacial melt.

* Scientists find far higher than expected rate of underwater glacial melting *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...ected-rate-of-underwater-glacial-melting.html



> Tidewater glaciers, the massive rivers of ice that end in the ocean, may be melting underwater much faster than previously thought, according to a Rutgers co-authored study that used robotic kayaks.
> The findings, which challenge current frameworks for analyzing ocean-glacier interactions, have implications for the rest of the world's tidewater glaciers, whose rapid retreat is contributing to sea-level rise.
> 
> The study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, surveyed the ocean in front of 20-mile-long LeConte Glacier in Alaska. The seaborne robots made it possible for the first time to analyze plumes of meltwater, the water released when snow or ice melts, where glaciers meet the ocean.


----------



## Chawbacon

valis said:


> It is moot at best; for you to state you have no interest in the success of alternative sources. This is not about industry or politics....this is the global future and ignoring it wont make it go away regardless of how much money is involved.
> 
> I do not think you grasp this, and no offense intended. It isnt politics, or industry; this is reality happening currently all around us.


Well, we were discussing the economic future of coal production as part of the U.S. economy at the time of the post of concern, as opposed to the overarching global warming concerns.

For clarification... I fully understand what you believe, as the global future of the planet, is wrapped up in a totality vision of the evil CO2; however, seeing as how I do not believe in the CAGW mindset, due to it violating common sense and our basic understanding of physics, I can easily divide subjects for specific discussion where they brush up against this topic.

Additionally, I must respectfully disagree with your evaluation that CAGW is not about politics, or industry. Yes, the reality happening around us is that the planet is warming; but, to say that man is definitively the cause of global warming is reckless and irresponsible. Understanding the history behind the CAGW movement, it's misinformation campaigns, coverups, and the big money incentives to establish CAGW as an undeniable truth, it is easy to see the political and industry impacts. Please understand that I have no problem with promoting and encouraging a cleaner planet (in fact, I encourage these efforts); however, I do not agree with the CAGW misrepresentation of man being the cause of global warming as fact.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> And you keep denying reality.
> Obama's plans were never put into effect.
> I cited sources.
> This is just another instance of you making the same statement after being repeatedly refuted.


Here is an NYT article that you might find interesting Johnny. Seems like there are a lot of fossil fuel related regulations that are being targeted by President Trump. 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
Again... Regulations, even proposed as a targeted objective, by any President of the United States will have an impact upon the viability of that industry. 


Johnny b said:


> The playing field was level. Still is, actually.
> I gave reputable sources showing coal is a more expensive fuel.
> You just don't like it.
> Well, obviously Trump doesn't either because he's been ignoring the mine closings, the laid off mine workers and the coal fired utilities being replaced with alternative and less expensive means. There isn't much he can do about it till he becomes President for Life.
> 
> Alternative fuels have to meet the same clean air standards as coal.
> They can simply do it cheaper.
> 
> And with emission standards now relaxed, coal still isn't economically competitive as I've pointed out many times.


Sigh… ok... one more time... I do not endorse the government enabling one company with an economic advantage over another company, regardless of the industry. From company tax incentives, to end-consumer tax deductions for purchasing a particular product, all of these government endorsement tricks provide unfair advantages within the affected industries; which obviously creates an uneven economic playing field.

If coal fails on an economically level playing field, then someone else is producing energy cheaper. Good for them. BUT, keep the government out of deciding the winners and losers of commerce. Yes, I understand that the playing field is technically level; however, to say that a windmill is equally affected by a regulation targeting the coal production industry, is a bit disingenuous. For example, I would equally disagree if President Trump was to direct the EPA to develop a regulation (under the guise of animal protection) that required every windmill farm involved in more than 25 avian deaths (due to bird strikes) to shut down for the remainder of the calendar year. Granted, this would please many wild life lovers, but, it would in no way affect a coal production facility, unless they were using a windmill to power part of the local production process.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Here is an NYT article that you might find interesting Johnny. Seems like there are a lot of fossil fuel related regulations that are being targeted by President Trump.
> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html
> 
> (edited for brevity)





> Here is an NYT article that you might find interesting Johnny.
> 
> Seems like there are a lot of fossil fuel related regulations that are being targeted by President Trump.


It was interesting.
Apparently you don't understand the concept of 'rollback'.
The targeting was to allow MORE pollution.
Read it again 



> If coal fails on an economically level playing field, then someone else is producing energy cheaper. Good for them.


There is no 'IF' to the situation.
Alternatives have become a less expensive means of electrical generation ....on that 'level playing field' you like to daydream about.
This has been brought up repeatedly, and yet you keep using denial as a crutch.



> BUT, keep the government out of deciding the winners and losers of commerce.


Wow, for guy that supports Trump's trade tariff wars with the world, you seem quite conflicted.
Or was that statement merely an argument of convenience?




> Yes, I understand that the playing field is technically level



Say what?
Sure, it can vary in intensity, but It either is or it isn't. 
Clean air regs apply to all means of electrical generation.
Owners of wind turbines just don't need to worry about them 




> to say that a windmill is equally affected by a regulation targeting the coal production industry, is a bit disingenuous.


Sophistry.
The issues revolve around air quality standards.
Wind turbines easily meet them, coal not so much ( ........ )
Trump obviously prefers profits to clean and healthy air.
And he looks for the vote in coal country.

Same goes for his stance on water quality.
Oddly ( not really ) the reasons for air and water pollution often share the same sources.



> For example, I would equally disagree if President Trump was to direct the EPA to develop a regulation (under the guise of animal protection) that required every windmill farm involved in more than 25 avian deaths (due to bird strikes) to shut down for the remainder of the calendar year.


From a pov involving logic, you just made an absurd comparison where you consider the health impacts ( leading to shortened lives and death, of a large segment of human populations ....to windmills that kill a few too many birds in localized environments......and picked the birds over the people.

Did Georgia make you leave? 



> Granted, this would please many wild life lovers, but, it would in no way affect a coal production facility, unless they were using a windmill to power part of the local production process.


Your argument had nothing to do with the cost of generating electricity with in the bounds of clean air standards. 
Like the rabid liberal, your argument chose the welfare of birds over humans.

But birds also breathe the same air as humans 

Are you SURE your argument isn't politically motivated?


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> It is reality; to me it is like driving into a brick wall and refusing to acknowledge it.
> 
> At some point, it does not matter if you acknowledge it; you still get pancaked.


Apparently, Jack has a lot of issues over 'pancaked' birds.

Humanity however......meh!


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article over at ars Technica

* New estimate of how much thawing permafrost will worsen warming *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-much-thawing-permafrost-will-worsen-warming/



> The results indicate that the carbon released by abruptly thawing permafrost is far from trivial but also unlikely to be a monster that dwarfs the gradual processes already being simulated.


----------



## Johnny b

Global Warming Ate My Oreos lol!

* Climate Change Is Coming for Your Oreos *

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/climate-change-coming-oreos-110015447.html


----------



## Chawbacon

Ok. Let me respond to these somewhat absurd conclusions, without micro-analyzing every sentence as some individuals are prone to do. 



Johnny b said:


> Say what?
> Sure, it can vary in intensity, but It either is or it isn't.
> Clean air regs apply to all means of electrical generation.
> Owners of wind turbines just don't need to worry about them


Your response directly reflects on my viewpoint. If the playing field was level, you would not receive/have received tax incentives over the last 20 years for Going Green Initiatives. For example: Purchasing an electric car, burning biomass, more efficient appliances via tax credits for exceeding Energy Star recommendations, powering your house with alternate energy (wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal heat pumps), etc. And many individuals seem to conveniently ignore that electric cars have to recharge, and that electricity has to come from somewhere, with coal being one of the production sources.

When was the last time you received a tax break for purchasing a gas burning SUV? Simple concept here, these tax breaks give one part of the industry a competitive advantage over other another part of the industry. 


Johnny b said:


> It was interesting.
> Apparently you don't understand the concept of 'rollback'.
> The targeting was to allow MORE pollution.
> Read it again


Sigh... Please attempt to separate the mental concepts here. 
Yes the article addressed rollbacks; however, in context of efforts by President Trump to level the energy production playing field, the concept is readily understood.


Johnny b said:


> There is no 'IF' to the situation.
> Alternatives have become a less expensive means of electrical generation ....on that 'level playing field' you like to daydream about.
> This has been brought up repeatedly, and yet you keep using denial as a crutch.


Again, I am fine if coal fails on a mostly level playing field. Yes, reasonable clean air regulations need to be in place to help keep the air clean; but, at this point in time, not to the point of pricing out coal as a solution. If and when we reach a point that coal is not required to help meet the country/world energy demand, coal will no longer be a factor; until then, coal must be an affordable alternative and no portion within the industry should be subsidized by the government.


Johnny b said:


> Wow, for guy that supports Trump's trade tariff wars with the world, you seem quite conflicted.
> Or was that statement merely an argument of convenience?


Ok... Still about leveling the playing field; but, on a much bigger scale. Other countries have been taking major economic advantage of the United States for centuries by implementing significantly imbalanced tariffs against goods produced in the United States, Government confiscation of technology, and extremely substandard wages. The President pushing back against the unfair trade practices implemented by other countries may be what is needed to not only bring attention to the issues; but, also force misbehaving countries to trade with the United States on a more equal footing.


Johnny b said:


> From a pov involving logic, you just made an absurd comparison where you consider the health impacts ( leading to shortened lives and death, of a large segment of human populations ....to windmills that kill a few too many birds in localized environments......and picked the birds over the people.
> 
> Did Georgia make you leave?


Not sure how you reached that conclusion my friend. Perhaps a little too much puff-puff on the peace pipe?  
As for leaving Georgia... The birds forced me out.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Ok. Let me respond ..............
> 
> .....( edited for brevity  )





> Let me respond to these somewhat absurd conclusions, without micro-analyzing every sentence as some individuals are prone to do.


I'm not stopping you, Jack.
I invite you to post something meaningful 



> If the playing field was level, you would not receive/have received tax incentives over the last 20 years for Going Green Initiatives.
> 
> For example: Purchasing an electric car, burning biomass, more efficient appliances via tax credits for exceeding Energy Star recommendations, powering your house with alternate energy (wind turbines, solar panels, geothermal heat pumps), etc.


You are taking situations out of context. 
Many of those incentives are directed at energy usage at the point of utilization, not the means of energy generation at the point of energy production.
Be it coal or alternative sources, why shouldn't the wise use of the energy being generated, a consideration? 
How is creating efficient usage creating a biased playing field for selection of fuels?
It sounds more like you are biasing the playing field in favor of coal.
And one way is to reduce needed clean air and water standards in favor of coal but to the detriment of public health.

The playing field is more than pure economics. Adequate standards are needed for human survive-ability....it's an issue of pragmatism.
Standards are conceptually created for reasonable protection.
In this case, bad health and early death through pollution.

Of course you hate the concept. To you it's a political problem.



> And many individuals seem to conveniently ignore that electric cars have to recharge, and that electricity has to come from somewhere, with coal being one of the production sources.


It's interesting you would post that as you seem to argue against advancing alternative technologies that are more competitive than coal. !



> When was the last time you received a tax break for purchasing a gas burning SUV? Simple concept here, these tax breaks give one part of the industry a competitive advantage over other another part of the industry.


I wasn't aware iSUVs were generating electricity 
Teslas sell at a hefty premium compared to an equivalent gas burner.....check it out some time.
The tax break to owners had a limit to factory production/sales and I think they've passed that. 
What Tesla really gets are carbon credits that they sell to other manufacturers.
But that boom is about to decline/end as other manufacturers ramp up electric autos.
What happened? -------> the government aided in making a market. Not a new source of electrical generation.

Big difference 



> Sigh... Please attempt to separate the mental concepts here.
> Yes the article addressed rollbacks; however, in context of efforts by President Trump to level the energy production playing field, the concept is readily understood.


So? How is a 'rollback' of legislation that's not implemented, the leveling of anything?
Rollback only perpetuates the current conditions which as I have repeatedly demonstrated to you--------> coal is not currently competitive and alternative fuels are replacing it.

Of course you don't like it. You see the situation as a political problem.



> Again, I am fine if coal fails on a mostly level playing field.


Then why do you seem so upset? 
Be happy 



> Yes, reasonable clean air regulations need to be in place to help keep the air clean; but, at this point in time, not to the point of pricing out coal as a solution.


Obviously. 
You see this as a political problem.
What Trump wants, you want......and other trumpies, too.



> If and when we reach a point that coal is not required to help meet the country/world energy demand, coal will no longer be a factor; until then, coal must be an affordable alternative and no portion within the industry should be subsidized by the government.


There it is again, playing an "IF" game.
Coal is a more expensive for electrical generation, as I've pointed out many, many, many, many times.
You seem to hate capitalism when it's inconvenient.
What's up with that?



> Ok... Still about leveling the playing field; but, on a much bigger scale. Other countries have been taking major economic advantage of the United States for centuries by implementing significantly imbalanced tariffs against goods produced in the United States, Government confiscation of technology, and extremely substandard wages. The President pushing back against the unfair trade practices implemented by other countries may be what is needed to not only bring attention to the issues; but, also force misbehaving countries to trade with the United States on a more equal footing.


Your are only parroting Trump and his backers.
Much is BS. Even more is exaggeration.

The US used to be a leader in technology and manufacturing.
It is no longer, mainly because of it's self.
It's not one element, it's many. And not just these or in this order:

Unions.
Management.
Wars.
Hatred of the sciences by fundamentalists and political groups like Tea Partiers and MAGA worshipers.
The decline of our public schools.
Even the decline in upper education.
The acceptance of immoral and unethical decisions and activities.
And of course.....drug abuse.

The effect is, we've lost our competitive edge and it's easy to blame others for it.
Like you just did.



> ................
> As for leaving Georgia... The birds forced me out.


That's what angry birds do


----------



## Johnny b

Jack.
Answer me this if you can.

What kind of legislation would you suggest or concoct..... that demands they (a company, a utility in this case ) produce in a less efficient, more costly fashion resulting in lower profits than what is currently available?


----------



## Johnny b

Oh my goodness.......Jack's not going to like this.

Jack, you remember the farmers that Trump was screwing over?
You know......that world trade war.

Farmers have found an alternate source of income as a fallback.
Generating alternate energy......

* Like a 'second wife': Wind energy gives American farmers a new crop to sell in tough times *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rmers-earn-money-avoid-bankruptcy/4695670002/



> In an increasingly precarious time for the nation's farmers and ranchers, some who live in the nation's wind belt have a new commodity to sell - access to their wind. Wind turbine leases, generally 30 to 40-years long, provide the landowners with yearly income that, while small, helps make up for economic dips brought by drought, floods, tariffs and the ever-fluctuating price of the crops and livestock they produce.
> 
> Each of the landowners whose fields either host turbines or who are near enough to receive a "good neighbor" payment, can earn somewhere between $3,000 to $7,000 yearly for the small area - about the size of a two-car garage - each turbine takes up.


I can imagine the red hat MAGA goons chanting, "Jail 'em...jail 'em"
with Trump fisting the air, egging them on.

( did you like the melodrama?  )


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Jack.
> Answer me this if you can.
> 
> What kind of legislation would you suggest or concoct..... that demands they (a company, a utility in this case ) produce in a less efficient, more costly fashion resulting in lower profits than what is currently available?


My answer is that this question is simply nonsense. The government should never, and hopefully will never, make this type of idiotic policy.


Johnny b said:


> Oh my goodness.......Jack's not going to like this.
> 
> Jack, you remember the farmers that Trump was screwing over?
> You know......that world trade war.
> 
> Farmers have found an alternate source of income as a fallback.
> Generating alternate energy......
> 
> * Like a 'second wife': Wind energy gives American farmers a new crop to sell in tough times *
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rmers-earn-money-avoid-bankruptcy/4695670002/


No problem with this at all. The farmers concerned decided to build a wind mill and they are receiving payment to produce energy for the surrounding area. That is capitalism at work. 

Actually, I am surprised that you are not the one upset about the global warming impact. After all, the implementation of the concrete platforms required to support all of these windmills creates a permanent reduction of available greenery, which impacts the available greenery to absorb CO2. Granted, the net difference should favor the windmill farms, up to a point.


----------



## Chawbacon

Hey Johnny,

Thought I would add this into the CAGW discussion. After reading through 244 pages of interesting data, I came across this on page 244. 
*



A decade of variability on Jakobshavn Isbræ: ocean temperatures pace speed through inﬂuence on mélange rigidity

Click to expand...

*


> https://www.the-cryosphere.net/14/211/2020/tc-14-211-2020.pdf
> We have assembled and produced a comprehensive time series of terminus position, surface ﬂow velocity, surface elevation, and mélange rigidity for Jakobshavn Isbræ over the last decade. The data show a strong degree of variability, including a potentially brief (a few years) slowdown that coincided with cooler ocean temperatures (see also Khazendar et al., 2019). The time series of elevation provides an unprecedented level of detail, which clearly shows a pattern of summer thinning partially offset by winter thickening in response to seasonal changes in ﬂow speed over most of the record. At least from autumn 2016 through spring 2019, winter thickening outpaced summer thinning, leading to net thickening and elevations approaching those observed in 2010. These data also provide observational evidence to support theoretical development describing how necking proceeds as basal crevasses form (Bassis and Ma, 2015). The elevation data also show that although Jakobshavn Isbræ likely has the highest un-buttressed ice cliffs on Earth, at this point they do not appear to be subject to sustained catastrophic brittle failure. Most importantly, our observations reinforce earlier ﬁndings on the inﬂuence of mélange rigidity on calving (Amundson et al., 2010; Joughin et al., 2008b; Krug et al., 2015; Todd et al., 2018) and help establish an apparent connection to ocean temperature.


Now this means that all those predictions about the evil CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (1% of the total atmosphere at a generous estimate) causing the icecaps to melt is just a bunch of bunk.

In full disclosure though, below is the immediately following statement; BUT, why should people believe this prediction since CO2 has only increased since the 1900's, at least according to all the graphs that have been posted to this discussion. Counter intuitive to common sense eh?  Now this could simply be a fluctuation of a general global warming trend; however, it is apparent that greenhouse gasses are not the culprit.


> Ocean temperatures are expected to rise over the next century (Stocker et al., 2013), which will likely produce further retreat of Jakobshavn Isbræ. Superimposed on any trend for the last century, however, there is substantial multi-decadal scale variability of ocean temperatures in Disko Bay that correlates well with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index, which has been linked to past changes on Jakobshavn Isbræ (Lloydetal.,2011).


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> My answer is that this question is simply nonsense. ..........................


Well, I didn't think you would or even could.....but don't claim you weren't given an opportunity.



> No problem with this at all. The farmers concerned decided to build a wind mill and they are receiving payment to produce energy for the surrounding area. That is capitalism at work.


Of course you have a problem with it.
Because of your political stance, you ignore the situation that economics is challenging your claim that there is 'playing field' that needs to be level.
It is level as far as utilities go.
Otherwise utilities wouldn't be investing in building wind turbines on agricultural lands.

The farmer's hurt by Trump's tariff war with the world, wouldn't be strapped and in need of alternative revenue sources.
There's the imbalance.
You pose as if you support capitalism, and yet........well ....



> Actually, I am surprised that you are not the one upset about the global warming impact. After all, the implementation of the concrete platforms required to support all of these windmills creates a permanent reduction of available greenery, which impacts the available greenery to absorb CO2.


LOL!
I'm not a liberal, dude. 
I'm a practicing pragmatist. ......:......
To make changes for the better is a good thing you trumpies seem to ignore.
To correct injustice, you trumpies seem blind to.

imho (In My Humble Opinion), of course


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hey Johnny,
> 
> Thought I would add this into the CAGW discussion. After reading through 244 pages of interesting data, I came across this on page 244.
> 
> ..........


There is no page 244 to the pdf link you posted.
I don't know what you are referring to, specifically.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hey Johnny,.................


Hey Jackie 

You copied this from where I'm not sure of but I read what you posted.


> Ocean temperatures are expected to rise over the next century (Stocker et al., 2013), which will likely produce further retreat of Jakobshavn Isbræ. Superimposed on any trend for the last century, however, there is substantial multi-decadal scale variability of ocean temperatures in Disko Bay that correlates well with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index, which has been linked to past changes on Jakobshavn Isbræ (Lloydetal.,2011).


With out reading the context from where ever you got it:
*Superimposed on any trend for the last century, however, there is substantial multi-decadal scale variability of ocean temperatures in Disko Bay that correlates well with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index, which has been linked to past changes on Jakobshavn Isbræ (Lloydetal.,2011).*

Merely seems to mean the variability of temperature change at a location, correlates with changes elsewhere.
So?
In this case, energy is transferred by way of ocean currents to Disco Bay.
Any change in temperature of those ocean currents affects the temps of the ocean at Disco Bay.



> Now this means that all those predictions about the evil CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (1% of the total atmosphere at a generous estimate) causing the icecaps to melt is just a bunch of bunk.
> 
> In full disclosure though, below is the immediately following statement; BUT, why should people believe this prediction since CO2 has only increased since the 1900's, at least according to all the graphs that have been posted to this discussion. Counter intuitive to common sense eh?  Now this could simply be a fluctuation of a general global warming trend; however, it is apparent that greenhouse gasses are not the culprit.


hmmm....I think it has to do with you not understanding what you are reading......or there is more on this phantom page #244 you haven't addressed.


----------



## Johnny b

I did find the abstract interesting, Jackie 



> Abstract. The speed of Greenland's fastest glacier, Jakob-
> shavn Isbræ, has varied substantially since its speed-up in the
> late 1990s. Here we present observations of surface veloc-
> ity, mélange rigidity, and surface elevation to examine its be-
> haviour over the last decade. Consistent with earlier results,
> we find a pronounced cycle of summer speed-up and thinning
> followed by winter slowdown and thickening. There were ex-
> tended periods of rigid mélange in the winters of 2016-2017
> and 2017-2018, concurrent with terminus advances ∼ 6 km
> farther than in the several winters prior. These terminus ad-
> vances to shallower depths caused slowdowns, leading to
> substantial thickening, as has been noted elsewhere. The ex-
> tended periods of rigid mélange coincide well with a period
> of cooler waters in Disko Bay. Thus, along with the rela-
> tive timing of the seasonal slowdown, our results suggest
> that the ocean's dominant influence on Jakobshavn Isbræ
> is through its effect on winter mélange rigidity, rather than
> summer submarine melting. The elevation time series also
> reveals that in summers when the area upstream of the termi-
> nus approaches flotation, large surface depressions can form,
> which eventually become the detachment points for major
> calving events. It appears that as elevations approach flota-
> tion, basal crevasses can form, which initiates a necking pro-
> cess that forms the depressions. The elevation data also show
> that steep cliffs often evolve into short floating extensions,
> rather than collapsing catastrophically due to brittle failure.
> Finally, summer 2019 speeds were slightly faster than the
> prior two summers, leaving it unclear whether the slowdown
> is ending.


So, why is global warming /climate change a 'bunch of bunk'?
It is happening.
You've been shown graphical data from reputable sources.

( sorry about the way the abstract is formatted, it's the way my pdf reader seems to copy text. But it's on the first page of the link you posted if that helps  )


----------



## Johnny b

Jack, if you have any real interest in the Jakobshavn Glacier, check out Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Isbræ


> Jakobshavn Glacier drains 6.5% of the Greenland ice sheet


In other words, 93.5% of the Greenland ice sheet drains elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Isbræ#Acceleration_and_retreat


> Jakobshavn is one of the fastest moving glaciers, flowing at its terminus at speeds that used to be around 20 metres (66 ft) per day[11] but are over 45 metres (150 ft) per day when averaged annually, with summer speeds even higher (as measured 2012-2013).


It even had a 3 year growth spurt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobshavn_Isbræ#Advancement_and_thickening

( At least there is no phantom page missing  )


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hey Johnny,
> .....................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ocean temperatures are expected to rise over the next century (Stocker et al., 2013), which will likely produce further retreat of Jakobshavn Isbræ.
> ................
> 
> 
> 
> ................
Click to expand...

You don't believe in climate change/global warming, so why did you copy and paste it into your post?


----------



## Johnny b

And here we go with another report of the increasing rate of melting of Greenland's glaciers.
( Don't panic Jack!  )

It's merely a more detailed version of what is already known.
( Darn you must hate that )

* How the ocean is gnawing away at glaciers *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...ow-the-ocean-is-gnawing-away-at-glaciers.html



> The glaciers are melting rapidly: Greenland's ice is now melting seven times faster than in the 1990s - an alarming discovery,


!!!!!
Well, maybe you ought to start panicking!!! (  )

* 7 TIMES!!!!!! *

Anyway.....


> Over the past 20 years, it has experienced a dramatic loss of mass and thickness, because it's been melting not just on the surface, but also and especially from below.
> 
> Too much heat from the ocean


Hey Jack......where have we heard that before???? 



> For the purposes of the study, the researchers conducted the first extensive ship-based survey of the ocean floor near the glacier, which revealed the presence of a two-kilometre-wide trough, from the bottom of which comparatively warm water from the Atlantic is channelled directly toward the glacier.


Jack? Doomsday anyone? 



> To make matters worse, the layer of warm water that flows toward the glacier has grown larger: measured from the seafloor, it now extends 15 metres higher than it did just a few years ago. "The reason for the intensified melting is now clear," Schaffer says. "Because the warm water current is larger, substantially more warmth now makes its way under the ice tongue, second for second."


Oh my goodness Jack......you can run but you can't hide.

You can find the original article at the well known peer review site of Nature:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0529-x
( There is an abstract, but also a paywall for all the details. )

Jack, I truly hope your new abode is above sea level


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> There is no page 244 to the pdf link you posted.
> I don't know what you are referring to, specifically.


Good catch Johnny. I am not sure where the number 244 popped into my head from. It should have been around page 17 or so. I would not have read through 244 pages of Man Made Global Warming nonsense.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Good catch Johnny. I am not sure where the number 244 popped into my head from. It should have been around page 17 or so. I would not have read through 244 pages of Man Made Global Warming nonsense.


I think I now know why you have problems with climate data.....numbers are not your friends


----------



## Johnny b

Ouch!


----------



## Johnny b

* Major wind-driven ocean currents are shifting toward the poles *

https://www.innovations-report.com/...n-currents-are-shifting-toward-the-poles.html



> Satellite data gathered over four decades reveals a shift in the positions of the ocean gyres; model-based studies confirm that global warming is largely responsible





> Both datasets offer insights into the evolution of large-scale surface currents, and indicate that, in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere alike, the borders of the ocean gyres and their boundary currents are moving closer to the poles, at a rate of over 800 metres per year. This displacement of tremendous water masses is chiefly driven by global warming, as e.g. calculations using a new AWI climate model confirm.





> According to the AWI researchers, the consequences of this change can already be felt by human beings and the environment alike: in affected regions, the sea level is rising, indigenous species are migrating, and storms are now following new courses. The study was released today in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.


Jack.....I truly hope you bought/rent your new abode on high ground.

(  )


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article on tracking CO2 emissions from satellites.

https://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/environment-sciences/co2-tracking-in-space.html



> CO2 concentrations in the air continue to rise rapidly, and a rapid reduction in man-made emissions is becoming increasingly important. In order to assess the effectiveness of political measures, timely and reliable emission levels are needed. However, current methods are costly. The European Space Agency ESA is therefore working on the development of new satellites which will be able to determine CO2 emissions in the future - with the help of Empa.


----------



## Johnny b

Mini ice age proponent has scientific paper retracted:

https://arstechnica.com/science/202...the-sun-caused-global-warming-gets-retracted/



> A paper published last June was catnip for those who are desperate to explain climate change with anything but human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. It was also apparently wrong enough to be retracted this week by the journal that published it, even though its authors objected.
> 
> The lead author of the paper was Valentina Zharkova, a mathematician and astrophysicist at Northumbria University who has a bit of a track record. If you've ever read one of the dozens (hundreds?) of UK tabloid stories declaring that we're about to start an impending "mini ice age" driven by a declining solar cycle, it was probably supported by a quote from Professor Zharkova. A mini ice age can be difficult to fit into a 1,000 year warming trend, of course, but that didn't stop Zharkova from publishing her new claim.


----------



## Johnny b

* A Massive Glacier in East Antarctica Has Retreated 3 Miles in 22 Years *
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/a-massive-glacier-in-east-antarctica-has-retreated-3-miles-in-22-years



> East Antarctica's Denman Glacier has retreated nearly 3 miles over the past two decades, losing 268 billion tons of ice between 1979 and 2017, according to a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. If the glacier were to melt completely, it holds enough water to raise global sea levels by about 5 feet.


----------



## Chawbacon

Hey there.

For those of you that are well versed on the Global Warming issues, I was wondering about your take on this report from Nature.com. Basically, the study is indicating that cloud coverage is potentially the primary mover in determining the global temperature, as opposed to CO2. Thoughts? 


> *Analyzing changes in the complexity of climate in the last four decades using MERRA-2 radiation data*
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57917-8


----------



## Johnny b

> Basically, the study is indicating that cloud coverage is potentially the primary mover in determining the global temperature


But not as the primary rate of change in global temperature.
Indirectly, as climates change.

You have issues with reading comprehension.

From the article:


> In general, perturbations in either shortwave or longwave radiation will lead to an energy imbalance which has a direct impact on the dynamics of the Earth system18.


Did you bother to read the foot note? 

Let me help you (  )



> 18.
> 
> Donohoe, A., Armour, K. C., Pendergrass, A. G. & Battisti, D. S. Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing co2. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 16700-16705 (2014).


Back to the title of the article:

* Analyzing changes in the complexity of climate in the last four decades using MERRA-2 radiation data *

Back to the footnote:

* Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2 *
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16700



> The greenhouse effect is well-established. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, reduce the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) to space; thus, energy accumulates in the climate system, and the planet warms. However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming-the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.


Science, isn't it wonderful 
Try it sometime


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> But not as the primary rate of change in global temperature.
> Indirectly, as climates change.


Potentially as the primary as indicated in the Discussion and Conclusions section:
"Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example."


> In general, perturbations in either shortwave or longwave radiation will lead to an energy imbalance which has a direct impact on the dynamics of the Earth system18


The above was part of the introductory section and was subsequently a portion of the presumed science dataset that was questioned and analyzed.  It is stating that it is acceptable to acknowledge that energy imbalances in shortwave or longwave radiation will lead to an energy imbalance; however, the quoted portion is not acknowledging that CO2 is responsible for the imbalance. The amount of cloud coverage and it's potential impact on the global temperature is what this study is all about.


Johnny b said:


> Science, isn't it wonderful
> Try it sometime


Yes it is! Especially when the science is not based upon flawed assumptions that create unproven theories which are then pushed as fact. D)


----------



## Johnny b

> "Our research supports the idea that clouds and albedo, which ultimately determine the SW radiation, are variables of the utmost importance for current climate change, in agreement with previous research about the changes in stratocumulus or energy imbalance in the last four decades for example."





> however, the quoted portion is not acknowledging that CO2 is responsible for the imbalance.


No. Acknowledgement is in the footnotes the article is using for reference.

----->The change in CO2 concentrations drive a feedback system you are trying to describe, by denial of the input that drives a feedback system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedback ).

The article is footnoted.
Science is like that. Knowledge known is used to advance further studies.



Yes, science is wonderful, but if you intentionally ignore elements of it, especially what initially drive the energy imbalances, all you wind up with is the garbage of denial.

And that would be your assumption:


> The amount of cloud coverage and it's potential impact on the global temperature is what this study is all about.


No, it's only an element of a dynamic.

However, as I have pointed out from footnotes, CO2 influences the feedback system the article is focused on.
The article is using the info from that footnote to build a scenario.
Info you deny.

It's a 2 part reaction and it begins with increasing CO2 concentrations that affects secondary reactions which the article addresses. A dynamic.

It's called feedback.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> No, it's only an element of a dynamic.
> 
> However, as I have pointed out from footnotes, CO2 influences the feedback system the article is focused on.
> The article is using the info from that footnote to build a scenario.
> Info you deny.


Correct!

The information is part a scenario that was built and is subsequently being analyzed within the report. And the report indicates that cloud cover may play a significant role in the global temperature. The study is by no means definitive; but, the indicated results do beg further investigation, as opposed to simply being thrown out as unacceptable; because, they do not meet the current CAGW narrative.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Correct!
> 
> The information is part a scenario that was built and is subsequently being analyzed within the report. And the report indicates that cloud cover may play a significant role in the global temperature. The study is by no means definitive; but, the indicated results do beg further investigation, as opposed to simply being thrown out as unacceptable; because, they do not meet the current CAGW narrative.


Again, the dynamic is based upon the increased concentration of CO2.

CO2 concentrations drive a feedback dynamic.

The study is about the dynamic 

edit:


> they do not meet the current CAGW narrative.


You are confused.
The narrative is....global warming exists ( and data supports it ) and human activity is an element of that result. That would be greenhouse emissions and CO2 is one of them.
Denial of man's input is irrational given the evidence.

You are only parsing out of context to fabricate a denial.
Cherry picking.


----------



## Johnny b

* We just spent two weeks surveying the Great Barrier Reef. What we saw was an utter tragedy *

https://theconversation.com/we-just...-reef-what-we-saw-was-an-utter-tragedy-135197



> The Australian summer just gone will be remembered as the moment when human-caused climate change struck hard. First came drought, then deadly bushfires, and now a bout of coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef - the third in just five years. Tragically, the 2020 bleaching is severe and the most widespread we have ever recorded.
> 
> This year, February had the highest monthly sea surface temperatures ever recorded on the Great Barrier Reef since the Bureau of Meteorology's records began in 1900.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef will continue to lose corals from heat stress, until global emissions of greenhouse gasses are reduced to net zero, and sea temperatures stabilise. Without urgent action to achieve this outcome, it's clear our coral reefs will not survive business-as-usual emissions.


----------



## Chawbacon

Hey Johnny!

Just wondering... Since the Coronavirus has drastically reduced man made CO2 emissions, how much cooler do you think the global average temperature will be this summer? Yes I understand that it is all about cumulative CO2 in the atmosphere for the CAGW believers; but, take a swag for me. 

Interesting take here by a University of Wisconsin-Madison Climate Scientist. I am surprised that ABC News even put this in print. 


> *What impact will coronavirus have on climate change?*
> https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...itigate-climate-change-long/story?id=69334246
> *Emissions slowdown may be "counterintuitive" to helping environment*
> People may be mistaken if they feel like a temporary drop in greenhouse gas emissions is good for the environment, Andrea Dutton, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told ABC News.
> 
> When pollution is released into the air, the particulates "actually have a shielding effect" from the sun, Dutton said.
> 
> "If you take that away, then it has the opposite effect," and the planet could warm even faster, Dutton said.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Hey Johnny!
> 
> Just wondering... Since the Coronavirus has drastically reduced man made CO2 emissions, how much cooler do you think the global average temperature will be this summer? Yes I understand that it is all about cumulative CO2 in the atmosphere for the CAGW believers; but, take a swag for me.
> 
> Interesting take here by a University of Wisconsin-Madison Climate Scientist. I am surprised that ABC News even put this in print.





> Just wondering... Since the Coronavirus has drastically reduced man made CO2 emissions, how much cooler do you think the global average temperature will be this summer?


Temporarily, not much.
There is still excess CO2 coming out of the oceans.
Methane hydrates will continue to enter the atmosphere at the same rate.
There will simply be a lesser effect.
It might not even be noticeable.
From Wikipedia, "Currently, surface temperatures are rising by about 0.2 °C (0.36 °F) per decade".
That's .036 degrees F per year as an average.
There is natural global warming. Even you agree to this.
The effect will simply be a bit less than .036 degrees F. per year.
And when industry ramps back up to normal productivity, the effect will probably be back to an average of .036 degrees F per year again.

It will be nice breathing cleaner air again.
It won't last.

By the way, Andrea Dutton isn't a climate scientist. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dutton

Geology, yes . It's a different endeavor. 

It's interesting you've accepted an argument about particulates as if it also pertains to greenhouse gasses.

If you want to discuss 'particulates' ( dust )
read this:

* Dust's warming counters half of its cooling effect *
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/807/dusts-warming-counters-half-of-its-cooling-effect/

excerpt:


> The analysis showed that over half of dust's cooling effect is compensated for by its warming effect. The finding, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, could clarify scientists' understanding of how dust influences moisture fluctuations in the atmosphere and surface temperatures around the planet.
> 
> ........
> ......with dust holding on to more heat than previously thought, scientists can begin to reassess dust's role in changes observed near Earth's surface, such as air temperature and the moisture budget. For example, dust's warming effect on the atmosphere could be an underestimated factor driving evaporation, and atmospheric convection and stability.


Interesting article......that's the effect of dust.....particulate matter, though, not greenhouse gasses.

BTW, Jack....did you, perhaps, not read all of your article?
In case you missed it:


> "what really matters" is the cumulative emissions into the atmosphere over time -- since the Industrial Revolution.
> 
> *"The real big thing to focus on is cumulative emissions,"* she said. *"Until we address that and make the sustainable cuts we need, then we are effectively not solving the problem."*




It's really shameful the silliness you believe in, Jack


----------



## Noyb

I'm wondering how hot it would be if we weren't in a mini Ice age.
How far down the road is this "Kicking the Can" ?
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/


----------



## Johnny b

Noyb said:


> I'm wondering how hot it would be if we weren't in a mini Ice age.
> How far down the road is this "Kicking the Can" ?
> https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/


Your link presents a claim that we aren't currently in a mini ice age.

The rest is a 'what if'.
But this assessment says it all.



> .... a new Grand Solar Minimum would only serve to offset a few years of warming caused by human activities.
> 
> What does this mean? The warming caused by the greenhouse gas emissions from the human burning of fossil fuels is six times greater than the possible decades-long cooling from a prolonged Grand Solar Minimum.


In other words, global warming simply wouldn't increase as quickly for that period of time.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Temporarily, not much.
> There is still excess CO2 coming out of the oceans.
> Methane hydrates will continue to enter the atmosphere at the same rate.
> There will simply be a lesser effect.
> It might not even be noticeable.
> From Wikipedia, "Currently, surface temperatures are rising by about 0.2 °C (0.36 °F) per decade".
> That's .036 degrees F per year as an average.
> There is natural global warming. Even you agree to this.
> The effect will simply be a bit less than .036 degrees F. per year.
> And when industry ramps back up to normal productivity, the effect will probably be back to an average of .036 degrees F per year again.
> 
> It will be nice breathing cleaner air again.
> It won't last.
> 
> By the way, Andrea Dutton isn't a climate scientist.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dutton
> 
> Geology, yes . It's a different endeavor.
> 
> It's interesting you've accepted an argument about particulates as if it also pertains to greenhouse gasses.
> 
> If you want to discuss 'particulates' ( dust )
> read this:
> 
> * Dust's warming counters half of its cooling effect *
> https://climate.nasa.gov/news/807/dusts-warming-counters-half-of-its-cooling-effect/
> 
> excerpt:
> 
> Interesting article......that's the effect of dust.....particulate matter, though, not greenhouse gasses.
> 
> BTW, Jack....did you, perhaps, not read all of your article?
> In case you missed it:
> 
> 
> 
> It's really shameful the silliness you believe in, Jack


I read the article. You just don't like the fact that the ABC article contradicts the narrative you believe to be true and inadvertently points out how CAGW is really only a theory; but, if you are saying that ABC cannot be trusted to print the truth and should not be considered a valid journalistic source... ok... I can buy that too. 

OH... I am concerned about the amount of carbon particulates that we are producing... that is a real and tangible pollution issue that needs to be concentrated on.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I read the article. You just don't like the fact that the ABC article contradicts the narrative you believe to be true and inadvertently points out how CAGW is really only a theory; but, if you are saying that ABC cannot be trusted to print the truth and should not be considered a valid journalistic source... ok... I can buy that too.
> 
> OH... I am concerned about the amount of carbon particulates that we are producing... that is a real and tangible pollution issue that needs to be concentrated on.





> I read the article.


As I've commented before, you have issues with reading comprehension.

Your link:
https://abcnews.go.com/Internationa...itigate-climate-change-long/story?id=69334246
excerpt:


> Climate scientists say the decrease in emissions over China caused by the coronavirus lock down will not mitigate climate change.


Do you understand what 'will not' means?
How about the term 'mitigate'?

How about this sentence:
*Similar events in the past did not affect overall climate crisis*



> ABC article contradicts the narrative you believe to be true


No, I agreed with it LOL!
And even expanded on it.
You simply do not understand what the words in the article mean 

Nor the statement I posted:


> Temporarily, not much.
> There is still excess CO2 coming out of the oceans.
> Methane hydrates will continue to enter the atmosphere at the same rate.
> There will simply be a lesser effect.
> *It might not even be noticeable.*





> if you are saying that ABC cannot be trusted to print the truth and should not be considered a valid journalistic source... ok... I can buy that too.


I can say, you are not to be trusted when it comes to your understanding of science when it differs from your politics.
Lysenko made the same mistake


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> ..............................
> OH... I am concerned about the amount of carbon particulates that we are producing... that is a real and tangible pollution issue that needs to be concentrated on.


I doubt you are concerned, Jack.
I think you are posing.
If you were concerned, you'd have realized the below.

* The Damaging Effects of Black Carbon *
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/03/22/the-damaging-effects-of-black-carbon/


> ...black carbon not only has impacts on human health, it also affects visibility, harms ecosystems, reduces agricultural productivity and exacerbates global warming.
> 
> A major constituent of soot, black carbon is the most solar energy-absorbing component of particulate matter and can absorb one million times more energy than CO2.
> 
> a 2013 study estimated black carbon's effect to be 1.1 watts per square meter per year, second only to carbon dioxide, which is responsible for 1.56 watts per square meter. In other words, black carbon is the second largest contributor to climate change after CO2. But unlike CO2, which can stay in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, black carbon, because it is a particle, remains in the atmosphere only for days to weeks before it returns to earth with rain or snow.
> 
> Because black carbon absorbs solar energy, it warms the atmosphere. When it falls to earth with precipitation, it darkens the surface of snow and ice, reducing their albedo (the reflecting power of a surface), warming the snow, and hastening melting.
> 
> The United States is responsible for about 8 percent of global black carbon emissions, with most of it coming from diesel engines, biomass burning, including wildfires, residential heating and industry. Developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America emit more than 75 percent of global black carbon emissions,


Africa is a bad polluter of carbon particles. 
https://apnews.com/bfc6feb0cd164b8f...tion-killing-thousands-of-infants,-study-says

The US, not much.
As far as global warming goes, it's greenhouse gasses that are a bigger problem.

You haven't a clue as to what you read, Jack. !


----------



## Johnny b

What ever you do, Jack
Do not read this article!
It will simply upset you too much 

* 135-year-long streak is over: US renewable sources topped coal in 2019 *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-1880s-that-us-coal-lost-to-renewable-energy/

............


----------



## Johnny b

*NASA: Last Month Was Earth's Warmest May on Record *
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/nasa-last-month-was-earths-warmest-may-on-record



> Last month has entered the books as the warmest May in records stretching back to 1880, according to NASA's monthly analysis of global temperatures, published today.
> 
> The unusual warmth in Siberia may be spurring what scientists have dubbed "zombie" fires. These arise from blazes that burn deep into the soil the previous year and continue to smolder underneath the winter snows.












"Zombie" fires

* Scientists warn of 'zombie fires' in the Arctic *
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-scientists-zombie-arctic.html

* 'Zombie fires' are erupting in Alaska and likely Siberia, signaling severe Arctic fire season may lie ahead *
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/28/zombie-fires-burning-arctic-siberia/

................

* The Arctic may have crossed key threshold, emitting billions of tons of carbon into the air, in a long-dreaded climate feedback *
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...arbon-into-air-long-dreaded-climate-feedback/


> The findings are contained in the 2019 Arctic Report Card, a major federal assessment of climate change trends and impacts throughout the region. The study paints an ominous picture of a region lurching to an entirely new and unfamiliar environment.


https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019
(also https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card )

(many concerns listed in the article)
briefly:





Even Fox News:
* The Arctic may have crossed tipping point into destructive climate feedback loop, NOAA report says *
https://www.fox29.com/news/the-arct...uctive-climate-feedback-loop-noaa-report-says
(note: that's a local outlet. But very informative)


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article about the dynamics of climate change over extended periods of time.

* How Earth's Climate Changes Naturally (and Why Things Are Different Now) *
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...ly-and-why-things-are-different-now-20200721/

A long and involved read.


----------



## Johnny b

Another long, involved read:

* July was a hot one, but here's what NOAA sees ahead for the US *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...ne-but-heres-what-noaa-sees-ahead-for-the-us/



> *Here's the outlook for the next three months.*


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting article on volcanic ash and gasses.

* Volcanic ash may have a bigger impact on the climate than we thought *

http://www.geologypage.com/2020/09/...er-impact-on-the-climate-than-we-thought.html


----------



## Johnny b

*Greenland is about to lose ice faster than any time since the last ice age *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...-faster-than-any-time-since-the-last-ice-age/

* Rate of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet will exceed Holocene values this century *
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2742-6


----------



## Johnny b

From the beginnings of this topic at TSG some 15 years ago ( yes, the topic has been around here for quite a while lol ) I projected a position similar to this one I posted here: https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/post-9564110

Climate change/global warming is an event and reckless human activity an element that adds to environmental changes beyond the norm.
It's measurable with science to describe the activity, and theory to project future results.

There are those that tried to politicize my position with the idea I argued for climate reversal.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is global warming naturally occurring and man's endeavors add to the effect further speeding up the warming.

The few members still here during the original debate might remember a scientific model discussed..... that if all CO2 generated by man would cease, because of saturation in the oceans, atmospheric CO2 percentages would only slowly diminish.
The rate of warming could be reduced somewhat, but not a reversal for something on the order of many hundreds of years.

So. Now there's a new scientific model with a difference, what would happen if man made CO2 generation stopped ....Now?

* An earth system model shows self-sustained melting of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020 *
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75481-z


> In this paper we report that in the ESCIMO climate model the world is _already_ past a point-of-no-return for global warming.
> 
> ..............
> 
> To stop the self-sustained warming in ESCIMO, enormous amounts of CO2 have to be extracted from the atmosphere.


Like the Covid-19 pandemic, denial got us to this point.
One too many tipping points have occurred.

To the infamous Lanmaster of yesteryear...if you are out there......that lake side cabin half way up the Rockies is no longer for rent. 

Having pointed out the above, it's still wiser to generate less additional CO2. No sense in speeding up what's already out of control


----------



## crjdriver

Of course global warming is real. However one very easy question; when was the Earth warmest? It was long before man was even here; approx 65 million yr ago. Polar ice caps basically did not exist; sea levels many feet higher than today. 
Since this was long before man, what caused this "Global warming"

The answer is exactly the same thing that is causing this warming; variations in the Sun's output. The insolation which is short for incoming solar radiation is not constant.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> ..............
> 
> The answer is exactly the same thing that is causing this warming; variations in the Sun's output. The insolation which is short for incoming solar radiation is not constant.


Being the main source of energy, it's variability is going to have the most impact.
There are other natural factors in play, also.
The environment of the Earth has changed radically in the geologic past.
Like vulcanism, continental drift ( plate tectonics ), the beginnings of life and it's evolution with the coming of vegetation, the changing of ocean currents......and of course combinations of those as they vary in intensity.

The term 'forcing' is frequently used to denote the impact those elements have on global warming.
The greater the impact, the greater the value of the forcing.
And the value can even be a negative when more energy escapes the Earth than what is absorbed, which leads to a cooler Earth the extremes being ice ages of the geologic past.

Of interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing


----------



## crjdriver

Point being that the Earth has been both much colder AND much hotter in the past. 800 million yr ago, the polar ice caps extended to the equator; 65 million yr ago they [polar ice caps] did not exist. Both of those "Climate change" events occurred long before man was here.
This is a natural process and the thought that we should mess with it is [IMO] the epitome of arrogance.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Point being that the Earth has been both much colder AND much hotter in the past. 800 million yr ago, the polar ice caps extended to the equator; 65 million yr ago they [polar ice caps] did not exist. Both of those "Climate change" events occurred long before man was here.
> This is a natural process and the thought that we should mess with it is [IMO] the epitome of arrogance.


And it will cycle hotter and cooler in the future. The geologic future.

The 'point' concerning man's contribution is that it adds to a complex dynamic.
Currently, that addition is measurable and it's been politicized both ways, yea and nea.

I have posted, Climate change is not going to be reversed through man's efforts.
I stand by that from a scientific position.
From a pragmatic pov, there simply is no current means to have a significant impact on that natural process.
But that additional inclusion by man can be reduced, slowing down the measurable effect I have mentioned, that man is responsible for, and I stand by that from a scientific position.
Always have at TSG and always will until the science behind climate change shows otherwise.

My position is that the natural dynamic can not at this time or the near future be controlled by man's efforts, only man's involvement can be controlled.

It's been reported that Biden wants to reverse climate change. That's not going to happen.
But he can bring about changes that reduce the effect man has on climate change.

IMO, that's a better long term position than ignoring the situation.


----------



## valis

yes it is cyclical; no one is arguing that. the question in point is how much anthropological input we have; best guess is ~4% and that makes a mess


----------



## Johnny b

The Weather Channel has some interesting photos of glacial retreat in Alaska, from climate change, since the early 1900's.

https://weather.com/photos/news/glaciers-before-and-after-climate-change


----------



## valis

but don't forget, climate change isn't happening.....it's all fake news!


----------



## Wino

Same as COVID 19.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> but don't forget, climate change isn't happening.....it's all fake news!


That imagery drove me to look further into the science and details/data of climate change than I intended.... all those years ago when I first joined TSG.
We had a lot of interesting conversations between us.
I think most of it has been verified over time.
A lot more detail known today.

The deniers back then were a lot more creative ( as in bizarre ), though 
I remember still, a lot of Mike's zany logic and claims.

If it was snowing on the other side of the planet, how could climate change be warming? LOL!
Climate was the change in the weather.
Frustrating but so absurd, it was hilarious.....some of thoes claims. wow.


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> Same as COVID 19.


Similar political positions


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> That imagery drove me to look further into the science and details/data of climate change than I intended.... all those years ago when I first joined TSG.
> We had a lot of interesting conversations between us.
> I think most of it has been verified over time.
> A lot more detail known today.
> 
> The deniers back then were a lot more creative ( as in bizarre ), though
> I remember still, a lot of Mike's zany logic and claims.
> 
> If it was snowing on the other side of the planet, how could climate change be warming? LOL!
> Climate was the change in the weather.
> Frustrating but so absurd, it was hilarious.....some of thoes claims. wow.


Yup i recall....I actually posted a response on my blog that expanded on a response to Mike here, and that column got picked up by some school mag somewhere in your neck of the woods.

The science cannot be denied. If someone says 2 and 2 equals Buick, it doesnt make it correct, just makes them ignorant.


----------



## Johnny b

"Climate Normals"

* The new abnormal is warming up the US government's new climate norms *
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/noaa-delivers-new-us-climate-normals



> NOAA's new U.S. Climate Normals give the public, weather forecasters, and businesses a standard way to compare today's conditions to 30-year averages. Temperature and precipitation averages and statistics are calculated every decade so we can put today's weather into proper context and make better climate-related decisions.













> What a difference a decade makes. Even though 2/3 of the data in the new normals is present in the previous ones, the last decade's still been hot enough to drag the temperatures upwards.


----------



## Johnny b

Interesting.
Suggest a solution that is virtually impossible to accomplish.

From the House Caucus: 'Nutjobs Are Us' 
* Rep. Gohmert asks whether federal agencies can fix climate change by altering orbit of the Earth and moon *
https://news.yahoo.com/rep-gohmert-...ng-orbit-of-the-earth-and-moon-183152236.html

A quip from his past:



> Long a climate change denier, Gohmert in 2015 mocked Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore over their advocacy to address global warming, saying that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was a good thing because it meant "we'll have more plants."


That and BS Receptivity make interesting partners


----------



## valis

I read that earlier and just wondered 'how the heck did these people get elected?'


----------



## Johnny b

They're in Ohio, too.

I could say I don't know how or why they get elected, but I suspect it's society's reaction to things it doesn't know or understand. Rather than trying to learn and understand, distrust and emotionalism is a fallback position. 
Why? Because it's easier. What is unknown becomes equated with evil.

In general, a lifespan is 70+ years.
A person born today is likely to see their environment as the normal, not recognizing or able to acknowledge changes during previous generations.
Repeat that concept over many generations and there will those that believe the environment today is the same as before the industrial revolution. 
Result: today becomes the 'new' normal, just as it always has been 

Align religion and politics against change, and the mechanisms for correction become inefficient. To add support for their quest, and maintain their status, blame the inefficiencies on educators and scientists for they must be the villains for all the 'bad' going on. 

Oh happy day lol.


----------



## mygenericemail

I'm just curious as to WHEN the weather became "_climate change_"............
And who started this lunacy??


----------



## Johnny b

mygenericemail said:


> I'm just curious as to WHEN the weather became "_climate change_"............
> And who started this lunacy??


1.Never but there are believers.
2.Lunacy and politics seem to be connected like partners.
One side denies, the other exaggerates. Agreement becomes impossible.


----------



## Cookiegal

@mygenericemailm

I've edited your post for language. Please be more careful in the future as this is a family friendly site.


----------



## Johnny b

* The amount of Greenland ice that melted on Tuesday could cover Florida in 2 inches of water *
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/us/greenland-ice-melting-climate-change/index.html

Not a surprise.

Tipping points. Of no return.

Published August 2020:
* Greenland's ice sheet has reached 'point of no return' *
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/greenland-ice-sheet-global-warming-rising-sea-levels/


----------



## crjdriver

100 million years ago, the polar ice caps extended almost to the equator. There was approx a 1000 mile band of open ocean/land; the rest of the Earth was covered in ice. 65 million years ago [just before the dinosaurs were wiped out] the polar ice caps were almost non-existent; sea levels were many feet higher than today.
The idea that we are now at a "Tipping point or point of no return] defies any rational thought.

Both of those extremes were were much more than we see today AND the Earth recovered quite nicely. Point being this is a natural process and the idea that we should be messing with it is the epitome of arrogance.

When I pose the question that given the extremes of temp shown above, what is the "Normal" temp of the Earth? Funny, no one can answer that one......
Nor can they answer what caused the extremes of temp. Actually anyone who has studied astronomy can tell you what causes the temp changes.


----------



## valis

crjdriver said:


> 100 million years ago, the polar ice caps extended almost to the equator. There was approx a 1000 mile band of open ocean/land; the rest of the Earth was covered in ice. 65 million years ago [just before the dinosaurs were wiped out] the polar ice caps were almost non-existent; sea levels were many feet higher than today.
> The idea that we are now at a "Tipping point or point of no return] defies any rational thought.
> 
> Both of those extremes were were much more than we see today AND the Earth recovered quite nicely. Point being this is a natural process and the idea that we should be messing with it is the epitome of arrogance.
> 
> When I pose the question that given the extremes of temp shown above, what is the "Normal" temp of the Earth? Funny, no one can answer that one......
> Nor can they answer what caused the extremes of temp. Actually anyone who has studied astronomy can tell you what causes the temp changes.


I understand its cyclical; nobody is stating it isnt. The point being driven here is solely for the anthropogenic input. Humans have greatly accelerated the greenhouse effect. There is no denying that and now all we can do is just sit and watch. It cannot be reversed.


----------



## valis

And btw of course Earth will recover fine; it will be around loooong after we are gone. But thats just it. We really arent helping to keep our species around much longer (Imo obv).


----------



## crjdriver

When I was in college all those years ago, we were told that all of the "Greenhouse gases" were going to cause global cooling. I am still waiting for that one.
We were also told that we have reached peak output for oil and we will run out of oil in our [students] lifetime.
When you think that we have explored all of 1% of the ocean's floor for oil, the day of running out is WAY in the future.

The point is that the "Experts" are very often wrong when making predictions.


----------



## valis

crjdriver said:


> When I was in college all those years ago, we were told that all of the "Greenhouse gases" were going to cause global cooling. I am still waiting for that one.
> We were also told that we have reached peak output for oil and we will run out of oil in our [students] lifetime.
> When you think that we have explored all of 1% of the ocean's floor for oil, the day of running out is WAY in the future.
> 
> The point is that the "Experts" are very often wrong when making predictions.


Cant argue with that. Also cant argue with the fact the we (humans, in the industrial age) have driven CO2 in the atmosphere sky high, no pun intended.

Is what it is. Neither of us will be around to see the full results. My kid is 16, pretty sure he will. His kids DEFINITELY will.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> When I was in college all those years ago, we were told that all of the "Greenhouse gases" were going to cause global cooling. I am still waiting for that one.
> We were also told that we have reached peak output for oil and we will run out of oil in our [students] lifetime.
> When you think that we have explored all of 1% of the ocean's floor for oil, the day of running out is WAY in the future.
> 
> The point is that the "Experts" are very often wrong when making predictions.


Sigh:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> 100 million years ago, the polar ice caps extended almost to the equator. There was approx a 1000 mile band of open ocean/land; the rest of the Earth was covered in ice. 65 million years ago [just before the dinosaurs were wiped out] the polar ice caps were almost non-existent; sea levels were many feet higher than today.
> The idea that we are now at a "Tipping point or point of no return] defies any rational thought.
> 
> Both of those extremes were were much more than we see today AND the Earth recovered quite nicely. Point being this is a natural process and the idea that we should be messing with it is the epitome of arrogance.
> 
> When I pose the question that given the extremes of temp shown above, what is the "Normal" temp of the Earth? Funny, no one can answer that one......
> Nor can they answer what caused the extremes of temp. Actually anyone who has studied astronomy can tell you what causes the temp changes.


The point is in how FAST the climate is changing and how that affects the biosphere and its ability to adapt. We human's need the biosphere roughly the way that it is in order to feed ourselves.
The changes anticipated by climate change will cost much more money to mitigate than the cost of mitigating the climate change itself.
But I understand that you are not keen on changing the status quo because that might mean disruptions in the airline industry, which hits you in your pocketbook.


----------



## crjdriver

You miss the point completely; the point is that many so called "Experts" are often wrong. Blindly believing something without doing your own investigation is one lazy and two just wrong.

Is climate change real, of course it is real. That is easy to verify with temp readings. It is the cause that is open for debate.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> The point is in how FAST the climate is changing and how that affects the biosphere and its ability to adapt. We human's need the biosphere roughly the way that it is in order to feed ourselves.
> The changes anticipated by climate change will cost much more money to mitigate than the cost of mitigating the climate change itself.
> But I understand that you are not keen on changing the status quo because that might mean disruptions in the airline industry, which hits you in your pocketbook.


Wrong again. I retired a year ago. 
I often had this discussion with FAs and they could never answer what caused all of the previous changes to the climate.....
The answer is actually quite simple AND apparent to anyone who has studied physics or astronomy. Believe it or not, climate change is not limited to Earth.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> 100 million years ago, the polar ice caps extended almost to the equator. ........................


And the Earth was of a different configuration because of continental drift.
The oceans and their currents were different than of today.
Plant and animal life was evolving and having an impact on the global environment.

My point, you are attempting an 'apples to oranges' argument.
The Earth of 100 million years ago had a different environment.
Along with that difference is, as Tim pointed out, the human factor that ranges from the effects of civilization to the emissions it gives off.



> When I pose the question that given the extremes of temp shown above, what is the "Normal" temp of the Earth? Funny, no one can answer that one......


Because the question is a non-sequitur.
There is no 'Normal' to any system constantly in flux.
There is only the reality that exists due to that flux at any point in time.
Basically, an issue of energy input and it's distribution.



> Nor can they answer what caused the extremes of temp.


I just did.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> When I was in college all those years ago, we were told that all of the "Greenhouse gases" were going to cause global cooling. I am still waiting for that one.
> .........................
> 
> The point is that the "Experts" are very often wrong when making predictions.


Global warming is no longer a prediction.
Data supports it.
The predictions are of the future and the models do change as more is learned of the dynamics that exist.

"Experts" are humans and there are no perfect ones currently on this planet.
But they do have a better better grasp of reality then the typical mouth breather ( lol! )

Point of fact: greenhouse gasses (edited for clarity) are not the only cause of global warming, but the do influence how rapidly global temperatures can change.
There is data on that also.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> I understand its cyclical; nobody is stating it isnt. The point being driven here is solely for the anthropogenic input. Humans have greatly accelerated the greenhouse effect. There is no denying that and now all we can do is just sit and watch. It cannot be reversed.


Agreed.
Unfortunately the issue has become polarized by politics.
Deniers vs. exaggerators.
And the exaggerators push the imagery of global warming being reversed.
That won't happen with the natural forcings currently at play.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> Sigh:
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/


Just saw your linkage.
Yep, too often reporters have had too little scientific understanding of particular events and their articles do not stand the test of time well.
They write for attention.
It still happens.
This is why I prefer the thought's of the experts.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> You miss the point completely; the point is that many so called "Experts" are often wrong. Blindly believing something without doing your own investigation is one lazy and two just wrong.
> 
> Is climate change real, of course it is real. That is easy to verify with temp readings. It is the cause that is open for debate.


My understanding is that the overwhelming consensus is that most of today's climate change is human caused. I have even head it said that without human activity, the earth would be currently in a cooling phase at the moment. 
I think the deniers are those that have an interest in keeping the status quo of a fossil fuel powered world.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> You miss the point completely; the point is that many so called "Experts" are often wrong. Blindly believing something without doing your own investigation is one lazy and two just wrong.
> 
> Is climate change real, of course it is real. That is easy to verify with temp readings. It is the cause that is open for debate.


The error on your logic is that 'cause' is not a singular input to the dynamics of global temperature.
There are numerous 'natural' forcings at play, the most obvious the incoming radiation from the Sun. And they do change.

A list of forcings ( also called climate drivers )
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/13

Humanity plays a small part, but the rate of change it makes is observable over time and measurable.


----------



## SeanLaurence

So is that the answer then? 
The fatalistic "Climate change is real but don't blame me" attitude?
We will just have to fix things as they break.
People will migrate to cooler climates when their crops fail year after year.
Canada and Siberia will become the world's bread baskets.
The Brazilian rainforest will shrivel and die.
We will get used to breathing air with less oxygen.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> My understanding is that the overwhelming consensus is that most of today's climate change is human caused. I have even head it said that without human activity, the earth would be currently in a cooling phase at the moment.
> I think the deniers are those that have an interest in keeping the status quo of a fossil fuel powered world.





> ............I have even head it said that without human activity, the earth would be currently in a cooling phase at the moment.


I'm dubious of that, Sean.
From a geological pov, the last ice age isn't over yet and it's been retreating ( warming up ) far longer ago than since the industrial revolution.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> So is that the answer then?
> The fatalistic "Climate change is real but don't blame me" attitude?
> We will just have to fix things as they break.
> People will migrate to cooler climates when their crops fail year after year.
> Canada and Siberia will become the world's bread baskets.
> The Brazilian rainforest will shrivel and die.
> We will get used to breathing air with less oxygen.


There is a reality and, imo, it isn't pretty.
I think the best that can be done is to mitigate the damage and string out the effects, with humanity persevering through new technologies. And that will be a struggle with suffering.
Or, the situation can be made worse faster, by ignoring the problem.

At my age, I won't be here to see the efforts.
So....good luck


----------



## SeanLaurence

How about this article to back up my position. Do recall that I said "I have even head it said" I have not vetted this source myself, nor am I a climate scientist.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...ly-and-why-things-are-different-now-20200721/


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> How about this article to back up my position. Do recall that I said "I have even head it said" I have not vetted this source myself, nor am I a climate scientist.
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-...ly-and-why-things-are-different-now-20200721/


That is a long article and seems informative, but where does it address reversing global warming?


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> Humanity plays a small part, but the rate of change it makes is observable over time and measurable.


Its recognised as ~4% anthropogenic increase in CO2 (based at findings at Mauna Loa) and as John said, 4% aint much but it can make a big difference in a complex machine.

Again; is what it is now. Its moot. Now we just fasten the seatbelts and watch.


----------



## valis

For those who doubt that mankind affected global temps....


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> ....................
> 
> Again; is what it is now. Its moot. Now we just fasten the seatbelts and watch.


Seems that way.

I remember way back in that closed debate forum, I brought up the issue of CO2 saturation in the oceans.
The projection was, if all human input ceased immediately, it would take about 200 years for the oceans to stop emitting excess CO2.
And the reality to that scenario is an impossibility unless we go extinct tomorrow.


----------



## valis

Yup.

Second largest carbon sink is the Amazon rain forest and we are fixing that by eliminating it....


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> That is a long article and seems informative, but where does it address reversing global warming?


The position I was supporting is that we would otherwise be in a cooling spell.
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> Seems that way.
> 
> I remember way back in that closed debate forum, I brought up the issue of CO2 saturation in the oceans.
> The projection was, if all human input ceased immediately, it would take about 200 years for the oceans to stop emitting excess CO2.
> And the reality to that scenario is an impossibility unless we go extinct tomorrow.


Stoner, GB, and Mulder....man did they annoy me in the 'closed debate forum'...😁


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Yup.
> 
> Second largest carbon sink is the Amazon rain forest and we are fixing that by eliminating it....


Yeah.
And now there is this:

* Parts Of The Amazon Rainforest Are Now Releasing More Carbon Than They Absorb *
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016...re-now-releasing-more-carbon-than-they-absorb


----------



## valis

SeanLaurence said:


> The position I was supporting is that we would otherwise be in a cooling spell.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/


All well and good.

Point is, however, we are not and won't be in any of our lifetimes. And its sorta our fault.


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> Yeah.
> And now there is this:
> 
> * Parts Of The Amazon Rainforest Are Now Releasing More Carbon Than They Absorb *
> https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016...re-now-releasing-more-carbon-than-they-absorb


Okay that aint good.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> The position I was supporting is that we would otherwise be in a cooling spell.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/


Fair point.
The timeline starts at the Industrial Revolution.
I'd like to see data of solar input on more of a geological scale.

A link you might like to read in support of your position:
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> ............................ I have even head it said that without human activity, the earth would be currently in a cooling phase at the moment.
> ...........................


I'm still having issues with the logic of that statement.
Generally, I often think in terms of geologic time spans concerning significant climate change and cause.

While the time span from the Industrial Revolution to today is relatively significant in terms of Human life spans, to exclude consideration prior to the IR is technically cherry picking. At issue is the time frame, 'the moment'.

If you take that famous Hokey Stick graph, you can easily cherry pick 'moments' to prove just about anything. The 'Little Ice Age' for instance.

In the geological past, the Earth's temps have cycled back and forth. And within those cycles, there have even been minor variations.

By limiting the time span to between the present and the IR, how do we know that without human activity, the Earth would be in a cooling event and not just a minor fluctuation?

While the argument has been around solar input, Wikipedia has a graph that compares natural forcings to temp increases about the same time frame:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_And_Forces.svg
(NASA data)









As you can see, it's not so clear that we'd be in a cooling phase without human activity.
Only that human activity definitely has an impact.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> So is that the answer then?
> The fatalistic "Climate change is real but don't blame me" attitude?
> We will just have to fix things as they break.
> People will migrate to cooler climates when their crops fail year after year.
> Canada and Siberia will become the world's bread baskets.
> The Brazilian rainforest will shrivel and die.
> We will get used to breathing air with less oxygen.


Very simple; you adapt. At one time Saudi Arabia was a rainforest [that is why there is so much oil in the region] What happened to all of the animals that lived in that rainforest??? They adapted, moved, or died. 
The great salt lake is what remains of an enormous inland sea [in fact where I live was under water at one time] What happened to all of those sea creatures??? Same answer. The world is not static. Climate changes; the definition of climate is weather over an extended period of time and we know the weather is not constant.

Running around saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling is not really going to fix anything. It comes down to one of the three answers above; adapt, move, or die.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> .....................
> 
> Running around saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling is not really going to fix anything. It comes down to one of the three answers above; adapt, move, or die.


Agree :up:


----------



## crjdriver

When I used to fly into the Salt Lake airport, you can see where the water level was on the mountains to the east of the airport. The levels are quite visible. At the highest water level, I would estimate that the level of the inland sea was at the very least 8500~9000ft above the current sea level. KSLC is at 4220' above sea level now and the marks in the mountains are at least 4~5000' above the airport.


----------



## Johnny b

Where I live in Ohio was once a marine seabed with enough marine fossils to choke evolution deniers.
And evidence of glaciation.

Things change. The Earth isn't static and likely will never be the same as in it's past.

My point is to seek acceptable alternatives that reduce the damage occurring to the environment, with out harming civilizations.
Simply saying 'No' to human activity as an absolute isn't realistic.

Objectively, getting away from processes involving oxidation seems a positive goal to me.
But there have to be realistic options that are doable.

Electrification of transportation seems worthy.
Next step would be the generation of electricity without oxidation.
But these things don't happen overnight. 
And it takes a lot of new technologies and planning.


----------



## crjdriver

I am in favor of electric cars; and I am considering purchasing a Tesla. I even wired up my garage with a 4prong "Tesla" plug to charge the battery. Combined with my solar panels, it will cost nothing to charge the car.
IMO electric cars will not replace internal combustion cars until you can charge an electric car in approx the time it takes to pump fuel into a gas/diesel car. No one wants to wait an hour or more to charge a car when you are on a long trip.
For in town running around, they are great however not for long haul stuff.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> ..........................
> IMO electric cars will not replace internal combustion cars until you can charge an electric car in approx the time it takes to pump fuel into a gas/diesel car. No one wants to wait an hour or more to charge a car when you are on a long trip.
> For in town running around, they are great however not for long haul stuff.


Range is still a shortfall for anyone taking even a long day ride.
But I expect to see some interesting battery developments in the next few years.

I don't drive much these days.
Car and Truck combined, less than 5K a year.
My '96 Monte is still considered low mileage. 46K and in good condition except for some hail dents.
And my '17 Colorado has less than 6K.
At my age, 75, I doubt I'll be buying another car or truck.....and I have several others.

If I had a need, it would be an electric replacement.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Running around saying the sky is falling, the sky is falling is not really going to fix anything. It comes down to one of the three answers above; adapt, move, or die.


So lowering greenhouse gas emissions is not even a possibility?
CO2 Sequestration?
Geo-Engineering?

We run around saying "the sky is falling" (hyperbolically) because there is a problem that needs to be addressed. If you don't recognise the problem then you cannot adapt or move. So we all die


----------



## Johnny b

Sean, I think this is what he's referring to:



> We will just have to fix things as they break.


Global warming can't be 'fixed'. Not in terms of an absolute.
Humanity can only reduce it's own input, not all of it.
As long as human activity exists, even the best agricultural practices will have some effect.
Cities will always act to some degree as heat sinks.
Commerce and manufacturing will always exist as long as civilization does.

But that's not an argument to stop or deny addressing the problem.

My position has always been, strive to reduce/improve activities with negative impacts through technology and conservation.

Yes, 'something' needs to be done.
IMO, the problem is getting peoples attention when it's easier politically to deny the problem exists or, it's going to be someone else's problem in the future, not theirs.
Not enough people think long term.


----------



## crjdriver

Sean what percentage of CO2 comes from man made activities and what percentage occurs naturally from the ocean??? The answer should surprise you.
By trying to circumvent a natural process, do you not think that is arrogance?
So what is the correct temp for the planet? Is it 20F hotter than today when Saudi Arabia was a rainforest OR is the correct temp much, much colder as it was when most of the Earth was covered in ice? 
The world wonders.....


----------



## Johnny b

Yep....the CO2 percentage that man's activities are responsible for, is about 4%.
It's not the cause of global warming, it does however, speed it up a little bit as data has shown.

I've never heard of any 'correct global temperature'. Not even the term until now.


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> I've never heard of any 'correct global temperature'. Not even the term until now.


My point exactly. No one can tell you IF the Earth should be hotter or cooler than the current temp. From what I have read the amount of man made CO2 is 2% with 98% occurring naturally [mostly from the ocean]


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> My point exactly. No one can tell you IF the Earth should be hotter or cooler than the current temp. From what I have read the amount of man made CO2 is 2% with 98% occurring naturally [mostly from the ocean]


No.....when life becomes stressed, the temps are definitely not desirable.
Deniers are ignoring the causes of current stresses and the potential of greater future stress.

Claiming an unused term to rationalize a position doesn't seem logical to me.



> From what I have read the amount of man made CO2 is 2% with 98% occurring naturally [mostly from the ocean]


I'd like to read your sources.
While the ocean is a sink for CO2 and absorbing it out of the atmosphere, it is saturated to almost the point of super saturation. I'm unaware of any process in the ocean that could generate such claimed amounts. It's simply, a container emitting excess storage.

And CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas.

Methane is also a contributor and deposits of it exist at the bottom of sea beds and frozen environments like Tundra....which is another potential tipping point approaching as many of those regions are experiencing warming and melt.


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> No.....when life becomes stressed, the temps are definitely not desirable.


Not desirable to whom? Humans are not the only residents of Earth. A warmer climate OR a colder climate would be desirable to a number of species.

My point is that what is being preached to the public by "So called" experts has changed many times. I have a lot more respect for someone who says "I do not know" than I do for experts who tell you this is the only way to think on any given issue. 
The "Experts" told me that the greenhouse gases would cause global cooling when I was in college. Those same "Experts" also said we are running out of oil and we have already reached peak output. Well, 1% of the ocean's floor has been explored for oil. I highly doubt we are running out of oil in the near future.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Not desirable to whom? Humans are not the only residents of Earth. A warmer climate OR a colder climate would be desirable to a number of species.
> 
> My point is that what is being preached to the public by "So called" experts has changed many times. I have a lot more respect for someone who says "I do not know" than I do for experts who tell you this is the only way to think on any given issue.
> The "Experts" told me that the greenhouse gases would cause global cooling when I was in college. Those same "Experts" also said we are running out of oil and we have already reached peak output. Well, 1% of the ocean's floor has been explored for oil. I highly doubt we are running out of oil in the near future.





> Not desirable to whom? Humans are not the only residents of Earth. A warmer climate OR a colder climate would be desirable to a number of species.


Well...if your argument is to include your own existence, I'd say the environment humanity lives in.
If it's another species with different requirements, aren't you in effect arguing to allow stress on humanity's environment for the advantage of something else that challenges humanity for existence?
Sounds like an argument leading to purging the human race rather than supporting it.



> My point is that what is being preached to the public by "So called" experts has changed many times.


Maybe many of those 'experts' aren't experts or have ulterior motives.
Look for better experts is about all I can recommend.
Read a lot. Choose logical and common sense sources.



> Those same "Experts" also said we are running out of oil and we have already reached peak output.


Peak oil is usually projected from known oil fields and rates of discovery.
There has been a lot of large new found deposits since I graduated back in 1970.
Shale oil was a new big find as with deep water deposits and the technology to extract developed.
Natural gas became the big leader because of fracking.



> I highly doubt we are running out of oil in the near future.


Agree. Probably not.

But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


----------



## Johnny b

An interesting article on the failed predictions of Climate contrarians.

*Climate contrarians predicted the world would cool-it didn't *
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/08/a-look-back-at-very-bad-predictions-of-global-cooling/

excerpt:


> Those who have opposed climate science's conclusions-they're a broad menagerie, including scientists in different fields, politics-obsessed bloggers, and think-tank employees-have also been squawking long enough for predictions to be tested. Despite their alternate-reality insistence that climate science never predicted anything, these contrarians don't spend much time showing off their own predictions' track record.
> 
> The reason for that is that the track record is very, very bad.


Examples are given.


----------



## crjdriver

> Agree. Probably not.
> 
> But that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


It has a lot to do with the thread when you think about all of the predictions that have not come to pass. Anyone who denies climate change is a fool however the _cause_ of said climate change is what I [and many others] dispute. It is a natural process that man has little [if any] control over. 
I do agree with you that a person must look beyond agenda driven science and do their own research.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> It has a lot to do with the thread when you think about all of the predictions that have not come to pass. Anyone who denies climate change is a fool however the _cause_ of said climate change is what I [and many others] dispute. It is a natural process that man has little [if any] control over.
> I do agree with you that a person must look beyond agenda driven science and do their own research.


Predictions not related to climate change or the physics behind climate change, are irrelevant to that topic. Period.



> It is a natural process that man has little [if any] control over.


And data positively shows that man's activities have sped up global warming.
And it should be pointed out that man's activities are not a 'natural process'.
They are the unnatural actions of mankind, driven and derived by survival and intellectual curiosity.
The concept of 'natural process' are those processes occurring in nature with the exclusion of mankind's input or intent.



> I do agree with you that a person must look beyond agenda driven science and do their own research.


I would add to that.....agenda driven politics, including both left and right wing extremes.
But I do read both elements to better understand the fallacies and lies projected.
Knowing why something is correct is important. Knowing why something is false also important.
The latter often leads to the former.
It's an element of the scientific method.


----------



## crjdriver

I highly doubt I will convince you and I _know_ you will not convince me so I think we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## valis

good read....



> Ongoing greenhouse gas emissions put elements of the Earth system at risk for crossing critical thresholds (tipping points), leading to abrupt irreversible climate change. Measures for reducing emissions should keep Earth in the safe operating space away from tipping points. Here we show that increasing rates of change of ice melt can induce a collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in a global ocean model, while no critical threshold in ice melt is crossed and slower increases to the same level of ice melt do not induce tipping. *Moreover, the chaotic dynamics of the climate make such a collapse hard to predict.* This shows that the safe operating space of the Earth system might be smaller than previously thought.


rather reputable source, too.


----------



## valis

crjdriver said:


> .....I do agree with you that a person must look beyond agenda driven science and do their own research.


nailed it there.....


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> I highly doubt I will convince you and I _know_ you will not convince me so I think we will have to agree to disagree.


LOL!

I'm not a very agreeable person 

My own view is that as long as I can present both a good argument along with an effective rebuttal.......the beat goes on. 

Just ask Valis....he's known me some 15 years or so ......shocking how time flies.

But I do like the civility. Makes for a better discussion.
( I also enjoy the 'dark side' if you know what I mean lol! )


----------



## valis

> I'm not a very agreeable person


shocked, I tell ya.....just shocked......

and yeah we've been banging heads for quite some time. Been a fun and learning ride to tell the truth.


----------



## Johnny b

lol.....just to correct any misconceptions, my reference to 'the beat goes on' was Sony and Cher inspired 

Not a physical confrontational reference.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> good read....
> 
> rather reputable source, too.


Reputable, yes. 
That's an issue in many mass media articles where the reporters/writers are simply regurgitating misunderstood/incorrect concepts.

This article is one of those, not only clear as mud, written in a way that could be misunderstood and a statement under a photo that is impossible.

* Study warns of 'irreversible transition' in ocean currents that could rapidly freeze parts of North America *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-could-freeze-north-america-study/5501368001/

The average person reading that is coming away with the idea that the issue becomes global cooling.
And the deniers are likely going to present it as evidence .....of global cooling.
I'm not claiming it's intentional on the part of the reporter/s......it's probably their ignorance that leads them in that direction.

It's all about the distribution of energy. In this case, a radical redirection as the ocean's currents, it's transportation of energy ( warm water ) moves energy to a different location.
Some parts of the globe get warmer, some cooler depending on how that energy is diverted.

And the caption under one of the images doesn't help in understanding the situation.


>


Slow down, yes. Reverse, no.

:down:


----------



## valis

I read it as the Love and Rockets remake of 'Ball of Confusion'.....

It's been a great (yikes!) 17 years here......and yeah, we definitely banged heads back in the day.....heck as recently as last year over Street Outlaws!  All we've done is to learn to respect each others opinions no matter how stupid they are.


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> Reputable, yes.
> That's an issue in many mass media articles where the reporters/writers are simply regurgitating misunderstood/incorrect concepts.
> 
> This article is one of those, not only clear as mud, written in a way that could be misunderstood and a statement under a photo that is impossible.
> 
> * Study warns of 'irreversible transition' in ocean currents that could rapidly freeze parts of North America *
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-could-freeze-north-america-study/5501368001/
> 
> The average person reading that is coming away with the idea that the issue becomes global cooling.
> And the deniers are likely going to present it as evidence .....of global cooling.
> I'm not claiming it's intentional on the part of the reporter/s......it's probably their ignorance that leads them in that direction.
> 
> It's all about the distribution of energy. In this case, a radical redirection as the ocean's currents, it's transportation of energy ( warm water ) moves energy to a different location.
> Some parts of the globe get warmer, some cooler depending on how that energy is diverted.
> 
> And the caption under one of the images doesn't help in understanding the situation.
> 
> Slow down, yes. Reverse, no.
> 
> :down:


Actually read that article. Told myself when they mentioned 'Day After Tomorrow' I would go back to my Dave Barry book.

Didnt take long...


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> I read it as the Love and Rockets remake of 'Ball of Confusion'.....
> 
> It's been a great (yikes!) 17 years here......and yeah, we definitely banged heads back in the day.....heck as recently as last year over Street Outlaws!  All we've done is to learn to respect each others opinions no matter how stupid they are.


But...but...but......Street Outlaws is real.....( LOL! )


----------



## Johnny b

This is a long and involved article.
I suspect most won't read it because of it's length and blindly fall back on their political positions, be it the socialist left, conservative right or fist pumping Trumplican.

Essentially, it's a discussion about the fallacies and unrealistic proposals of the degrowth movement.
It showcases what needs to be addressed and the realities of what degrowth can accomplish.

* Can we save the planet by shrinking the economy? *
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22408556/save-planet-shrink-economy-degrowth


----------



## valis

it's an interesting read; not too sure of the of the argument. this:



> What Hickel envisions is global movement in two directions: Poor countries could develop up to a certain level of prosperity and then stop; rich countries could develop down to that level and then stop. Thus, climate catastrophe could be averted, all while making the world's poor more prosperous.


IMO, leans waaaay to heavy on the 'if' factor. But again, I'm looking at this anew as I've never heard of this theory before. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> it's an interesting read; not too sure of the of the argument. this:
> 
> IMO, leans waaaay to heavy on the 'if' factor. But again, I'm looking at this anew as I've never heard of this theory before. Thanks for sharing it.


That was Hickel's argument. 
But not only a big 'if'.
The flaw in his logic was in the following paragraph:


> From a climate change perspective, though, there's a problem. First, it means that degrowth would do nothing about the bulk of emissions, which are occurring in developing countries.


Current emissions output:
https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions









And to show how emission output has changed over time, a period 1850 to 2011:
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/climate-change-and-development-three-charts









Sharing economic output with poor nations would only create a an even greater CO2 output from them.
And if you compare the outputs of China and India in those two graphs, it's obvious
that as poor nations achieve greater economic development, the greater their share of CO2 output while the world output keeps increasing.
Doing more of the same doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.

Consider....isn't degrowth really a repackaged form of socialism based on an 'if' that looks incredibly inefficient?


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> That was Hickel's argument.
> But not only a big 'if'.
> The flaw in his logic was in the following paragraph:
> 
> Current emissions output:
> https://www.cgdev.org/media/developing-countries-are-responsible-63-percent-current-carbon-emissions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to show how emission output has changed over time, a period 1850 to 2011:
> https://www.cgdev.org/blog/climate-change-and-development-three-charts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sharing economic output with poor nations would only create a an even greater CO2 output from them.
> And if you compare the outputs of China and India in those two graphs, it's obvious
> that as poor nations achieve greater economic development, the greater their share of CO2 output while the world output keeps increasing.
> Doing more of the same doesn't seem like much of a solution to me.
> 
> Consider....isn't degrowth really a repackaged form of socialism based on an 'if' that looks incredibly inefficient?


Yeah, there is something just 'off' about his logic. I applaud his effort but I don't see that in reality.


----------



## Tabvla

So..... the climate is changing.... yes..?

Well that is not really surprising as it has been changing for about the past 3.5 billion years in endless cycles of deep freeze and impenetrable jungle.

And before I forget, I support 100% that we should clean up this grubby earth that we have defiled for centuries. What a joy it would be (not only for humans) to have clean air, clean rivers, clean oceans, sustainable farming..... yes, we absolutely have to achieve that goal and achieve it within the next 25 years.

But don't let us get our science all wrong because that won't do science any good at all. Already there are too many science-deniers. Get the science wrong and that won't only lead to a tsunami of new science-deniers but it will also lead us down the wrong road to an unknown end.

I would like to see a peer-reviewed paper published in "The Lancet"; a paper that is based on measurable facts and that deals with climate change in terms of all the possible factors, not simply a tunnel-vision view of one aspect only. So what are the other factors..... ?

1. Changes in all aspects of the sun
2. Variations in the orbit of the earth
3. Variations in the angle of inclination of the earth
4. Evidence from the geological record of causes of previous warm periods
5. Air pollution from volcanic activity and natural wildfires
6. Naturally occurring changes in ocean currents
7. Naturally occurring atmospheric changes

My concern, with respect to a warming planet, is that human activity might not be the major contributor, in fact human activity might contribute a relatively insignificant percentage to the warming trend. If we focus only on human activity then we might not be scientifically aware of other, perhaps much more significant, contributing factors, which when we do become aware of them, it might then be just a little too late.

T.


----------



## Johnny b

Tabvla said:


> So..... the climate is changing.... yes..?
> ........................
> 
> My concern, with respect to a warming planet, is that human activity might not be the major contributor, in fact human activity might contribute a relatively insignificant percentage to the warming trend. If we focus only on human activity then we might not be scientifically aware of other, perhaps much more significant, contributing factors, which when we do become aware of them, it might then be just a little too late.
> 
> T.


Sounds like you are interested in what are called 'forcings'.
Natural versus man made.

https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing

Do you really think man can alter the forces of nature any significant amount?
Or even any amount?

If so, what and how?


----------



## Johnny b

> in fact human activity might contribute a relatively insignificant percentage to the warming trend.


Yep...an 'insignificant percentage', but enough to speedup the warming process. It's a measurable difference, but it's taken 150+ years of data to show it.


----------



## Johnny b

Is this even possible and if so, what would be the time line and costs involved?

* Lunar New Deal: GOP Rep. Gohmert suggests altering moon's orbit to combat climate change *
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...rep-gohmert-suggests-altering-moon-s-n1270219

* The Texas congressman asked whether there was anything the U.S. Forest Service could do "to change the course of the moon's orbit or the Earth's orbit around the sun." *

Sounds rather 'loony' to me.
Moving planets and moons around sounds like 'if wishes were wings' imagery.


----------



## Cookiegal

Tabvla,

I've merged your thread with the one that already exists and is ongoing.


----------



## Johnny b

Tabvla said:


> ........................
> 
> I would like to see a peer-reviewed paper published in "The Lancet"; a paper that is based on measurable facts and that deals with climate change in terms of all the possible factors, not simply a tunnel-vision view of one aspect only. .......................
> 
> ...............


Isn't The Lancet mostly a medical journal?

How about Nature?
https://www.nature.com/
Or Science?
https://www.sciencemag.org/

I've posted this link in the past. It's pretty good, also, for new scientific endeavors/break throughs/etc, many articles relating to university research.
https://www.innovations-report.com/


----------



## Johnny b

Here's an interesting article in Innovations.
Measuring methane emissions in the atmosphere from oil and gas extraction operations - mostly due to fracking.

*Researchers develop a better way to track methane in the skies *
https://www.innovations-report.com/...p-a-better-way-to-track-methane-in-the-skies/

And linkage to Nature for the the detailed paper:
* Closing the methane gap in US oil and natural gas production emissions inventories *
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25017-4


----------



## Johnny b

* NASA at your table: Where food meets methane

The Greenhouse Effect and Methane

NASA's Eyes on Methane

Paths Toward Reduced Methane Emissions*

https://www.innovations-report.com/.../nasa-at-your-table-where-food-meets-methane/

Interesting link in above article:

* Feeding Cattle Seaweed Reduces Their Greenhouse Gas Emissions 82 Percent *
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/feedin...ces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

Which led to this peer reviewed article:

* Red seaweed (Asparagopsis taxiformis) supplementation reduces enteric methane by over 80 percent in beef steers *
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0247820

No jobs would be lost and no social give-aways. :up:
Agriculture advances, one of many necessary responses to mankind's impact on global warming.
Not as grand a plan as moving planetary orbits or changing the tilt of a planet's axis, but in real terms, potentially doable :up:


----------



## Wino

Not sure I want my beef to taste like fish !! 😤


----------



## Johnny b

Wino said:


> Not sure I want my beef to taste like fish !! 😤


LOL!

Since the madcow scares, I tapered off of beef and here in Ohio, we simply don't get the quality and flavor I remember in my youth.
In my trips out west, I found the burgers tasted much better there than at home.
One time in Canada, I stopped at a Wendy's and got to talking to a group of bikers that asked if the beef in Ohio was as bad as in a Toronto Wendy's lol. Pretty sure they wouldn't like the burgers in Ohio  ( all the flavor is in the condiments )

Anyway, I lost the urge for tasteless fat drenched beef and would rather have salmon or tilapia any day.

..................

The second link did state the seaweed didn't affect the taste of beef.
Try it....you'll like it ( maybe  )

https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/feedin...ces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent


> Results from a taste-test panel found no differences in the flavor of the beef from seaweed-fed steers compared with a control group. Similar tests with dairy cattle showed that seaweed had no impact on the taste of milk.


----------



## Johnny b

Of interest:

* Sea-level rise becoming a hazard for suburban South Florida neighborhoods far from ocean *
https://news.yahoo.com/sea-level-rise-becoming-hazard-110000394.html



> Sea-level rise may appear to be a problem only for coastal residents, a hazard that comes with the awesome views and easy access to the beach.
> 
> But neighborhoods 20 miles inland are starting to feel the impact, as the Atlantic Ocean's higher elevation makes it harder for drainage canals to keep them dry.


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> Of interest:
> 
> * Sea-level rise becoming a hazard for suburban South Florida neighborhoods far from ocean *
> https://news.yahoo.com/sea-level-rise-becoming-hazard-110000394.html


A few decades ago I spent some time with a Floridian hydrologist who made that point that seawater incursion into the groundwater was the big problem. Much of her job was to measure the salinity of the water under golf courses in particular. 
Rising seawater levels will continue to make this "out of sight" problem worse.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> A few decades ago I spent some time with a Floridian hydrologist who made that point that seawater incursion into the groundwater was the big problem. Much of her job was to measure the salinity of the water under golf courses in particular.
> Rising seawater levels will continue to make this "out of sight" problem worse.


It can only get worse. And it will. 
There used to be a lot of concern with salt intrusion into the Everglades.
Haven't seen much on it in quite a while. Guess it's not as 'sexy' as greenhouse gasses.

dated 2018.
https://news.fiu.edu/2018/everglades-needs-more-fresh-water-to-fight-salt-water-intrusion

dated 2016.
https://www.npr.org/2016/05/25/477014085/rising-seas-push-too-much-salt-into-the-florida-everglades

And of course, municipal water sources in parts of Fla are/are going to be under greater stress, too.


----------



## Chawbacon

I see that you guys are still harping on the Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming Theory.

Has someone published empirical evidence to prove your case yet?

Or how about incontrovertible proof that shows exactly how man's total contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere

*(which is only .001 percent of the atmosphere)*

will definitively and without rebuttal, melt a polar icecap through the magic mushroom math called FORCING? 

Please remember to retrieve your common sense items from the hat check desk upon departure.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I see that you guys are still harping on the Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming Theory.
> 
> .................


Your absence was noticed. Welcome back. 

I see you are still in a state of denial


----------



## crjdriver

Chawbacon said:


> I see that you guys are still harping on the Catastrophic Man Made Global Warming Theory.
> 
> Has someone published empirical evidence to prove your case yet?
> 
> Or how about incontrovertible proof that shows exactly how man's total contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
> 
> *(which is only .001 percent of the atmosphere)*
> 
> will definitively and without rebuttal, melt a polar icecap through the magic mushroom math called FORCING?
> 
> Please remember to retrieve your common sense items from the hat check desk upon departure.


Finally someone with common sense. I always ask people what caused the numerous climate changes in the past [which were many, many times more worse than what we see now] No one has ever explained it to me. Since Man was not here, it must have been something other than Man causing the extreme variations in climate. Anyone who has studied astronomy already has the answer. Of course we can never let facts interfere with an agenda.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Finally someone with common sense. I always ask people what caused the numerous climate changes in the past [which were many, many times more worse than what we see now] No one has ever explained it to me. Since Man was not here, it must have been something other than Man causing the extreme variations in climate. Anyone who has studied astronomy already has the answer. Of course we can never let facts interfere with an agenda.





> No one has ever explained it to me.


I seem to remember that I did.

There have been many reasons. From large asteroid strikes to continental drift to the terraforming of earth by way of plant evolution. There was a time when there was no biosphere.
The Earth of today is not of the same environment as it once was. It's always been changing, always will. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower and usually for different reasons.
The study of geology explains a lot.

Deniers just don't accept the reasoning for the past few hundred years of accelerated warming.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Finally someone with common sense................


Well, consider this:



Chawbacon said:


> Or how about incontrovertible proof that shows exactly how man's total contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
> 
> ..............
> 
> will definitively and without rebuttal, melt a polar icecap through the magic mushroom math called FORCING?
> 
> ..............


See how slyly he refutes even your argument of solar input and it's forcing?
He hasn't a clue as to what the term means....or does he? 

It's a convenience of debate.
His denial while discrediting your own arguement, even though you use it incorrectly and ( oddly ) in his favor (  )

Apparently 'common sense' stops at the doorstep of denial lol.


----------



## SeanLaurence

This pandemic illustrates the problem with convincing people that manmade climate change is a a real problem that needs to be addressed. Even something as tangible as a virus that is spreading through the population at a rate greater than anything witnessed in living memory, too much of the world has responded with a shrug. And then there are the deniers. After all, only 1 in 500 Americans has died of this thing and I don't know anyone who has. Even if you are at the bedside of someone with a severe case, as a layperson, how would you even know that it is not a regular pneumonia you are looking at?
The answer: We rely on experts.
The wonks that do the data modeling to let us know what to expect if we do nothing.
But in America, nobody wants to change their lifestyle,.

I got a brochure from my city the other day about the steps the city is taking to combat climate change.
Mostly stuff about garbage and recycling improvements. Too little. Too late. What an embarrassment.
They need to talk about electrifying everything using clean energy sources.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> They need to talk about electrifying everything using clean energy sources


How well did that work for Texas or for the British when the wind from the North Sea did not blow for a month??? When the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow, you still need power.

I know the sky is falling the sky is falling. There are numerous "Doomsday" scenarios that did not come to past; we are running out of oil, if climate change is not reversed by the year 2000 it will be too late, if climate change is not reversed, we will all be living on Antarctica. This list goes on and on.


----------



## Johnny b

Promoting fusion electrical generation would/should be a consideration.
Even using lgn for power generation lowers greenhouse emissions.

As discussed earlier in this thread, coal fired plant generation has become more expensive as alternative sources became less expensive. So there is also a financial consideration that favors cleaner generating sources. And utilities are adjusting to that financial pressure with greater investment in alternative sources.
Coal mining is on the decline as the need for mw increases.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> ...............
> 
> I know the sky is falling the sky is falling. There are numerous "Doomsday" scenarios that did not come to past; we are running out of oil, if climate change is not reversed by the year 2000 it will be too late, if climate change is not reversed, we will all be living on Antarctica. This list goes on and on.


Indeed. But that's not nor has been my argument.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> How well did that work for Texas or for the British when the wind from the North Sea did not blow for a month??? When the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow, you still need power.
> 
> I know the sky is falling the sky is falling. There are numerous "Doomsday" scenarios that did not come to past; we are running out of oil, if climate change is not reversed by the year 2000 it will be too late, if climate change is not reversed, we will all be living on Antarctica. This list goes on and on.


In Texas, the utilities didn't weather proof the electrical and gas infrastructure, including their wind turbines as they were told to in the reports that were commissioned after the last time the grid failed in cold weather. Funny how we don't have these problems in Canada.

When I spoke of "clean energy sources." I didn't limit the choices to wind and solar.
There is also Geothermal, Hydro and Nuclear. Liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology looks more promising than Fusion for the medium term.
Another technology that is up and coming is cheap, massive battery storage.

As far as the world's oil supply goes: We do know that the world's supply of oil is finite, and there is a good chance that we have passed "Peak Oil" production in 2019. More oil becomes available when the price goes up, but the GHG emissions go up correspondingly. The Alberta tar sands are a prime example of this: the oil needs to be heated up to separate it from the sand.

The exact timing of catastrophic climate change is difficult to predict. Experts speak of a tipping point, and I don't think we are there yet, but it is not far off. I can't imagine that we won't pass it, and then we will have to rely on geo-engineering to mitigate the worst of the consequences.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> there is a good chance that we have passed "Peak Oil" production in 2019


Really??? How much of the ocean's floor has been explored for oil? Since arrox 65% of the Earth is covered by ocean, the amount that has been explored will amaze you. While the amount of oil may be finite, we are no where even close to running out of oil. 
I am still waiting for the global cooling that I was told was inevitable when I was in college. Again experts that were wrong.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Really??? How much of the ocean's floor has been explored for oil? Since arrox 65% of the Earth is covered by ocean, the amount that has been explored will amaze you. While the amount of oil may be finite, we are no where even close to running out of oil.
> I am still waiting for the global cooling that I was told was inevitable when I was in college. Again experts that were wrong.


Again, I am not an expert, but I do look at the advice of experts. Not that anyone has a crystal ball.
The whole global cooling thing was a short lived theory from back when the Captain & Tennille's song "Love Will Keep Us Together" was number one.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Really??? How much of the ocean's floor has been explored for oil? Since arrox 65% of the Earth is covered by ocean, the amount that has been explored will amaze you. While the amount of oil may be finite, we are no where even close to running out of oil.
> I am still waiting for the global cooling that I was told was inevitable when I was in college. Again experts that were wrong.


BP apparently thinks we may have passed peak oil production anyway:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passed-peak-oil-bp-figures-reveal


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Really??? How much of the ocean's floor has been explored for oil? Since arrox 65% of the Earth is covered by ocean, the amount that has been explored will amaze you. While the amount of oil may be finite, we are no where even close to running out of oil.
> I am still waiting for the global cooling that I was told was inevitable when I was in college. Again experts that were wrong.


That unknown may be a moot point.
As alternative sources become less expensive with technological advances, deep well extraction only gets more expensive. It's a matter of locations and the environment from a physical aspect.
It's not a scenario that capitalism would willingly embrace with more profitable options.

You can wait all you want for global cooling, or just move closer to one of the poles.
Equatorial regions are already expressing stress from global warming, so I wouldn't recommend going there.

I did take a course in meteorology at a university, but global warming wasn't presented one way or another. That would have been about 1967 or so.
In my major, geology, discussion of climate change in previous eras was discussed, but nothing political about them. Just events that happened and their effects.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> BP apparently thinks we may have passed peak oil production anyway:
> https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-world-has-already-passed-peak-oil-bp-figures-reveal


IF you read that article, you would see that it references demand NOT output. Of course demand will go down with better fuel economy, increasing use of electrical pw, etc. The aircraft I finished my career on is many times more efficient than the first generation jets. The article is about demand NOT output.
For your info, we have explored approx 1% of the ocean's floor for oil. No one knows what is under the other 99% and of course you are not going to drill for oil in the Marianas trench however much of the sea floor is able to be explored and drilled. 
"We are running out of oil" Just another fallacy I was told in school. That along with the global cooling fallacy. Gee, I wonder what else the so called experts have gotten wrong???


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> .........................
> 
> ... Liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology looks more promising than Fusion for the medium term.
> Another technology that is up and coming is cheap, massive battery storage.
> ......................


Short term, almost anything looks better than fusion. It's simply not ready yet, but there have been some important advances recently.
I think I posted to it in this thread a little while ago.
Whoever does engineer one successfully will likely become a world leading financial power.
One big downside is that it's been and still is, painfully expensive to engineer and test.
Reality, it takes a lot of government subsidy to fund. 
And that's not currently a priority with the ongoing pandemic.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Your absence was noticed. Welcome back.
> 
> I see you are still in a state of denial


Thanks for the Welcome Back Johnny! I'm not really back much. Just needed a break from School work. I have about another 9 months or so left.

Yeah... I am still denying the beliefs of the Man Made CAGW believers.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> .........
> 
> Yeah... I am still denying the beliefs of the Man Made CAGW believers.


Of course you are :up:
And I do need somebody playing the foil to make the thread work


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> Of course you are
> And I do need somebody playing the foil to make the thread work


Nah! However, I will give you another chance to answer the questions posted?


Chawbacon said:


> Has someone published empirical evidence to prove your case yet?
> 
> Or how about incontrovertible proof that shows exactly how man's total contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
> 
> *(which is only .001 percent of the atmosphere)*
> 
> will definitively and without rebuttal, melt a polar icecap through the magic mushroom math called FORCING?


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Nah! However, I will give you another chance to answer the questions posted?





> Has someone published empirical evidence to prove your case yet?


You can read this thread as well as anyone, and you have.
If you think I'll entertain a pattern of repetition like your buddy, Tony the chess master, you're mistaken.

Like anyone with a computer, and you obviously have one, you can Google the search terms
"empirical evidence for global warming"
Many links with recognizable names from having been quoted in the past.



> Or how about incontrovertible proof that shows exactly how man's total contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere


That's been addressed many times.
I've even posted, to you in the past, the scientific testing procedures.
We've even discussed why such small amounts can and do make significant changes over time.

I'll give you another chance to be honest with the forum


----------



## crjdriver

Of course it is Man's fault. 65 million years ago, CO2 was between 2000 and 4000 PPM. Today around 400 PPM; yes it was up to 10 times more in the past. Must have been those pesky dinosaurs driving cars with internal combustion engines. If only they had gone green, the CO2 might even be as low as it is now....


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Of course it is Man's fault. 65 million years ago, CO2 was between 2000 and 4000 PPM. Today around 400 PPM; yes it was up to 10 times more in the past. Must have been those pesky dinosaurs driving cars with internal combustion engines. If only they had gone green, the CO2 might even be as low as it is now....


Again, think of the differing geological conditions for historical variations of CO2.
And it has varied significantly.
Man's input initially started with the industrial revolution and it's effect accelerated as our activities increased.

https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/

But this graph is more relevant to us, leading up to our time frame, from about 800,000 years ago.


----------



## crjdriver

No one ever said it is not moving. AND that chart only references the last 800,000 years. When gets to 2000 PPM, then it might be to a level before Man.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> No one ever said it is not moving. AND that chart only references the last 800,000 years. When gets to 2000 PPM, then it might be to a level before Man.


Wrong logic.

The distant past represented significant different geologic and environmental conditions.
The Earth of today will never experience them again.
The Earth of the last million years is more representative of what we now experience.

Did you read my link?
Notice the levels during the Ordovician era.
Up to 9000 ppm.
With temps only 10C higher.
Life was a lot different then 
So was the Earth.


----------



## crjdriver

I am still waiting for someone to explain what is the "Correct" temp for Earth. Is it as hot as 65 million years ago OR as cold as 100 million years ago; maybe somewhere in the middle???
Climate change even occurs on other planets [without Man] 
The Sun and it's variations of energy output is the driving force behind climate change; not Man.


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> The Earth of today will never experience them again.


I would not be so sure of that statement. As the Sun ages and insolation changes, the Earth may well see conditions that far exceed what happened in the past.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> I am still waiting for someone to explain what is the "Correct" temp for Earth. Is it as hot as 65 million years ago OR as cold as 100 million years ago; maybe somewhere in the middle???
> Climate change even occurs on other planets [without Man]
> The Sun and it's variations of energy output is the driving force behind climate change; not Man.





> I am still waiting for someone to explain what is the "Correct" temp for Earth.


The correct temperature is the one where life is successful.
Other than that, the concept has no meaning other than 'it is what it is'.


----------



## crjdriver

BTW when the Sun exhausts most of it's hydrogen fuel and starts burning helium then heavier fuels, you will see climate change like you have never seen before. In fact all life on Earth will cease.


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> The correct temperature is the one where life is successful.
> Other than that, the concept has no meaning other than 'it is what it is'.


Successful for whom??? I think the dinosaurs would like a much warmer temp.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> I would not be so sure of that statement. As the Sun ages and insolation changes, the Earth may well see conditions that far exceed what happened in the past.


And the Sun is expected to swell near it's eol and engulf the Earth.
But let's be practical.
As the Earth is about 5 billion years old, with the oldest of life found to be about 3.5 billion years old, when do you think conditions in the future ( Earth Sun relationship ) will express conditions of the past?

Now remember the link I posted?
Because the Ordovician was only 10C warmer than today, it was because the Sun was cooler, ie, the Sun has gotten warmer and Earth's orbit was different.
That was some 500 million years ago.

To address your post, I'm thinking in terms of millions of years. Like, hundreds of millions.

To be fair, pick any other era millions of years ago. But you still have the same issue. Millions of years to account for.

With the politics and pandemics of the day, I'm guessing that future is moot. lol.
And even if life survives, I suspect evolution won't be kind.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> BTW when the Sun exhausts most of it's hydrogen fuel and starts burning helium then heavier fuels, you will see climate change like you have never seen before. In fact all life on Earth will cease.


I just addressed that


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Successful for whom??? I think the dinosaurs would like a much warmer temp.


For life that exists.
Why bring up the needs of extinct species?


----------



## SeanLaurence

What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> For life that exists.
> Why bring up the needs of extinct species?


I just saw a news article describing the unprecedented number of Oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico that are a result of Hurricane IDA. 
The point of combatting climate change is not only to take away jobs in the fossil fuel energy business, It is to eliminate the uglier forms of pollution as well.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> I just saw a news article describing the unprecedented number of Oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico that are a result of Hurricane IDA.
> The point of combatting climate change is not only to take away jobs in the fossil fuel energy business, It is to eliminate the uglier forms of pollution as well.


Have you ever been to the Gulf? If you had, you would know that oil comes up out of the sea floor quite often WITHOUT drilling. There is so much oil offshore in the Gulf it just bubbles up from cracks in the sea floor.


----------



## SeanLaurence

so we are doubling that with exploration and extraction activity.

"Global estimates suggest that naturally occurring oil seeps account for some 47% of the oil released into the ocean environment; on average, 160,000 tons of petroleum leak into waters surrounding North America each year."
https://www.saildrone.com/news/usv-study-oil-seep-gulf-mexico

So you are OK with a base rate of double the regular amount of oil in the Gulf, and 6 times that amount when there is a hurricane?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...tion=click&module=RelatedLinks&pgtype=Article


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> .......................There is so much oil offshore in the Gulf it just bubbles up from cracks in the sea floor.


Indeed.

However, I don't see oil spills as a a factor of climate warming/change.
It's an issue of pollution and quality of life.
And I don't think eliminating jobs should be a goal. IMO, better to create new technologies oriented to emiting fewer greenhouse gasses and retraining the workforce rather than eliminating it. These technologies should replace fossil fuel tech by being more competitive as well as more efficient.
And that is happening with coal fired utilities.


----------



## crjdriver

Yes, I am fine with it since climate change is not man made. It is a natural process however it is being sold to an unsuspecting public as the ultimate crisis. 
I doubt I will be able to convince you and I know you will not change my mind.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Yes, I am fine with it since climate change is not man made. It is a natural process however it is being sold to an unsuspecting public as the ultimate crisis.
> I doubt I will be able to convince you and I know you will not change my mind.


As I've stated before, collectively, man's activities add to and increase the rate of change.
It's an issue of how much energy drives the change and what part of it is man's contribution. Small as it is, man's effect has been measurable and corresponds with the industrial revolution and it's growth.
Denying it like Jack does, is irrelevant. Hell...he's shown to not know the difference between weather and climate. He has argued they are the same concept 

I let the science of the situation convince me. Jack's sophistry is only amusing at best.
And I'm not here to convince anyone the Earth is going to burn up if we don't act now.
We're just going to warm up a bit faster.


----------



## Chawbacon

Johnny b said:


> You can read this thread as well as anyone, and you have.
> If you think I'll entertain a pattern of repetition like your buddy, Tony the chess master, you're mistaken.
> 
> Like anyone with a computer, and you obviously have one, you can Google the search terms
> "empirical evidence for global warming"
> Many links with recognizable names from having been quoted in the past.


I am not aware of any of your empirical evidence for MAN MADE global warning that has NOT been challenged as false. Would you care to play again? 


Johnny b said:


> I've even posted, to you in the past, the scientific testing procedures.
> We've even discussed why such small amounts can and do make significant changes over time.
> 
> I'll give you another chance to be honest with the forum


And that is a big bunch of malarkey. Your scientific testing procedures use assumptions based upon fairy tales, like CO2 molecules rubbing together in a large enough quantity to heat up the Earth (completely ignoring atmospheric convection and carbon sinks), or that gases retain/trap heat (completely ignoring how gasses actually work by heating up and cooling down, or that it's a cumulative process (again ignoring how gasses function within the atmosphere), or claiming that most heat is trapped in the atmosphere like a greenhouse (completely ignoring the physics involved with the Earth's atmosphere butting up against a big cold expanse called space). I can easily go on; but, I even you can see my point here.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> I am not aware of any of your empirical evidence for MAN MADE global warning that has NOT been challenged as false. Would you care to play again?
> 
> And that is a big bunch of malarkey. Your scientific testing procedures use assumptions based upon fairy tales, like CO2 molecules rubbing together in a large enough quantity to heat up the Earth (completely ignoring atmospheric convection and carbon sinks), or that gases retain/trap heat (completely ignoring how gasses actually work by heating up and cooling down, or that it's a cumulative process (again ignoring how gasses function within the atmosphere), or claiming that most heat is trapped in the atmosphere like a greenhouse (completely ignoring the physics involved with the Earth's atmosphere butting up against a big cold expanse called space). I can easily go on; but, I even you can see my point here.


You can and will spread your BS all you want, but your 'awareness' is nothing other than denial.
The data has been posted in terms of graphs, repeatedly and with you many times and you have not even bothered an attempt to challenge it. You simply repeatedly demand the same spiel, 'show me the empirical proof'.
You aren't a new member here.
So I do not see it as an issue of inquisitiveness. Just the typical debate tactic seen so often in past evolution/creation debates.
Wear an opponent out with repetition.

And so the BS flows with further meaningless/outrageous statement out of the blue, much in the manner of Tony's efforts.



> Your scientific testing procedures use assumptions based upon fairy tales, like CO2 molecules rubbing together in a large enough quantity to heat up the Earth


LOL!
My testing procedures?
Are you off your meds?
I have no idea where you came up with that incredible vision but I don't doubt you have linkage to some bizarre web site pushing it as an argument or cherry picked it out of context from a reputable source as you often seem to do.



> or that gases retain/trap heat (completely ignoring how gasses actually work by heating up and cooling down


Ah....gasses work? lol.
You must really hate thermodynamics.
Please, post how gasses work to generate energy through thermodynamics.
Address 'generate'.....not 'transfer'
Hasn't the free energy/ perpetual motion fallacy ever been explained to you, or do you just nod your head and think, wow, that's cool?



> or that it's a cumulative process (again ignoring how gasses function within the atmosphere)


Still unable to grasp the concept of 'forcings' ?
Denying the concept won't make it go away.
That's the total energy input with sources listed as to their contribution.
And that input is variable.



> or claiming that most heat is trapped in the atmosphere like a greenhouse


Like many of your political posts, you just made that up.



> (completely ignoring the physics involved with the Earth's atmosphere butting up against a big cold expanse called space)


Here's something to consider.
If 'space' is the absence of matter, what is the atmosphere butting up against?

The physics you would be looking at is the radiant transfer of energy.
And as you deny, in this post, the concept of 'forcings', you just denied the concept of radiant energy and eliminated the most powerful forcing of all....the Sun.



> I can easily go on; but, I even you can see my point here.


Yes, I can see your point. You haven't a clue as to what you are trying to express. 
Did you create that post all by yourself or did you have help?

LOL. That was fun for a change


----------



## Johnny b

No doubt, this news article will likely set Jack to ranting against Democrats 

* Illinois becomes 1st Midwestern state to pass a law to phase out fossil fuels *
https://news.yahoo.com/illinois-bec...e-to-plan-fossil-fuel-phaseout-190947145.html

And it's a given this will cause Jack a lot of gastric distress 



> Although the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act stood a chance of passage only because Democrats control both houses of the state Legislature and the governor's mansion, the Republican response offers hints of a potential partisan thaw on global warming.
> 
> "We had some very, I would say, out-of-step rhetoric opposing the bill, but we no longer hear anyone doubting the science of climate change," Darin said. "So even the most conservative objections to the bill did not question the science and the urgency of acting on climate.


And OMG!


> ..... most Republican objections were couched in statements of support for renewable energy. Things that we used to hear Democrats say 15 years ago about an all-of-the-above strategy that includes fossils and renewables is kind of where the Republicans seem to be now."


Shocking, just shocking I tell you!! ( ... )


----------



## crjdriver

Climate change activists in Mesozoic era 
There were probably zealots at work then.


----------



## Johnny b

LOL!

Not enough seaweed in their diets.....


----------



## Johnny b

Screw the science. Screw correctness. Screw objectivity......It's about the money.
And one outed denier apparently thinks he has figured out a way to make up for lost revenue.
Law suits.
But will the courts buy it ( lol )



> *Ex-Fox host claims Facebook defamed him by fact-checking climate change videos*


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...d-him-by-fact-checking-climate-change-videos/



> Former Fox Business host John Stossel is suing Facebook, alleging that the social media company and one of its contracted fact-checking organizations defamed him when it flagged two of his videos, alerting viewers to "missing context" and "partly false" claims.
> 
> The lawsuit also claims that Stossel's professional reputation has been "significantly and irreparably damaged by the false labels and statements."
> .........
> ...he has made around $10,000 a month from Facebook alone. "My news model is based on social media companies showing you videos," he said on YouTube.
> But when Facebook's fact-checking label appeared on two videos, Stossel alleges that his ad revenue from the platform was cut by approximately 45 percent.


Amazing how profitable click bait has become 

All he really needs to do is join the anti-vaxxer movement to make up for that lost revenue and score the easy money. Add in a little voodoo like Trump did and he's got a winner.
Going total 'nutjob', Stossel probably wouldn't receive criticisms like:


> Both videos were fact-checked by Climate Feedback, a subsidiary of French fact-checking organization and Facebook partner Science Feedback. The group found that Stossel's climate change video contained "partly false information" because "speakers in the video rely on several inaccurate claims and use imprecise language that misleads viewers about the scientific understanding of climate change."


Taken to extremes, the seriousness of the topic is overshadowed by the click bait factor as it's amplified for the 'brain dead'. 
( wait a minute.....that sounds a lot like climate change/global warming denial videos )

<yawn>

* Video promoted by John Stossel for Earth Day relies on incorrect and misleading claims about climate change *
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...JXuoDXnukcxa3BHVG_wfUWGH7zU-0C95ugMNIunA6Y10Y

Interesting.
And notice the critique isn't just a series of accusations.
Stossel is taken to task with explanations of why his video was misleading.

I relate to this comment by Andrew King:


> In these debates, climate denialists recycle the same flawed arguments even though they have been debunked many times


We have a similar denialist in our own thread lol.
Interesting examples of repetition from the above link
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php


----------



## Johnny b

Hey Jack 

I found the perfect app for your smart phone:

https://crankyuncle.com/



















Enjoy


----------



## Johnny b

All of a sudden (  )

* Antarctica's 'doomsday glacier' is facing threat of imminent collapse, scientists warn *
https://news.yahoo.com/antarcticas-...inent-collapse-scientists-warn-220236266.html



> An Antarctic glacier the size of Florida is on the verge of collapse, scientists with the American Geophysical Union warned Monday, a nightmare scenario made worse by climate change that could eventually result in several feet of global sea level rise.


And then:

* Sea level is already guaranteed to rise by 5 feet, climate scientist says *
https://news.yahoo.com/sea-level-is...-5-feet-climate-scientist-says-090020184.html


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> All of a sudden (  )
> 
> * Antarctica's 'doomsday glacier' is facing threat of imminent collapse, scientists warn *
> https://news.yahoo.com/antarcticas-...inent-collapse-scientists-warn-220236266.html
> 
> And then:
> 
> * Sea level is already guaranteed to rise by 5 feet, climate scientist says *
> https://news.yahoo.com/sea-level-is...-5-feet-climate-scientist-says-090020184.html


That will not even be close to the sea level during the Mesozoic period. During that period [when there was NO one burning fossil fuels] the sea level was approx 650' higher than today........


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> That will not even be close to the sea level during the Mesozoic period. During that period [when there was NO one burning fossil fuels] the sea level was approx 650' higher than today........


And the entire environment of Earth was different.
Continental drift, mountain building, the atmosphere, the biosphere and even ocean currents were all different causing a different diversity and intensity of energy distribution than today.
We live in a different environment today.
One of the biggest fallacies is claiming the dynamics of the distribution of energy and it's result is equivalent over millions of years. 
It is, however, important to know why those conditions existed and why they changed.

It's today's reality and environment we have to address, not one millions of years ago.


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> Continental drift, mountain building, the atmosphere, the biosphere and even ocean currents were all different causing a different diversity and intensity of energy distribution than today.


So, you are saying this is a _natural_ process. I might even agree with you. 
Climate change is real; it is only the cause on which we disagree.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> That will not even be close to the sea level during the Mesozoic period. During that period [when there was NO one burning fossil fuels] the sea level was approx 650' higher than today........


With 'several feet' of rise comes the destruction of much property and occupancy along coastlines.
Goodby to present shipping ports.
Goodby to much of Florida and elements of current Louisianan, Alabama and Texas coast lines.
East coast and west coast properties in the US will also experience an encroaching ocean.
So will the rest of the world that has property fronting on oceans.

More immediate will be the intrusion of icebergs into shipping lanes.

....................
That is what procrastination and politics has brought us.
Rationalizing the coming disasters.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> So, you are saying this is a _natural_ process. ..........


No.
Not what is occurring now.
Man's participation is geologically a new vector.
I've been clear on that many times.


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> No.
> Not what is occurring now.
> Man's participation is geologically a new vector.
> I've been clear on that many times.


So, the mild changes [relative to previous changes] are caused by something other than nature. AND the very profound changes; ice world to tropical climate that resulted in a short [relative to Earth's history] period of time were caused only by nature...... It makes one wonder.....


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> So, the mild changes [relative to previous changes] are caused by something other than nature. AND the very profound changes; ice world to tropical climate that resulted in a short [relative to Earth's history] period of time were caused only by nature...... It makes one wonder.....


It makes me wonder, too 

(sophistry doesn't work well on me  )

So, if you want to 'talk jibberish', maybe you need to go find a liberal.


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> talk jibberish


100 million years ago the planet was almost covered in ice. Polar ice caps extended almost to the equator; only approx 500 miles of open ocean/land. 35 million years later, polar ice caps where almost gone. All this done by nature. Somewhat makes todays climate change look like chump change.

Not gibberish; cold hard fact. BTW that is the more correct spelling.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> 100 million years ago the planet was almost covered in ice. Polar ice caps extended almost to the equator; only approx 500 miles of open ocean/land. 35 million years later, polar ice caps where almost gone. All this done by nature. Somewhat makes todays climate change look like chump change.
> 
> Not gibberish; cold hard fact. BTW that is the more correct spelling.


You're only being repetitive.

And worse, somehow think millions of years of global change is comparable to the last few hundred years.

Your correct spelling doesn't offset the logical fallacy you made.
Don't feel alone on that, many make the same mistake.
It's termed a 'false equivalence'.


----------



## crjdriver

I doubt I will ever change your mind and I _know_ you will not change mine


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> I doubt I will ever change your mind and I _know_ you will not change mine


I gave up thinking I could actually change anyone's mind on the issue more than a decade ago.

All in all......it's a politically polarized topic.
IMO, it shouldn't be.

The data stands, The science behind the concept stands.
And it's happening.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> 100 million years ago the planet was almost covered in ice. Polar ice caps extended almost to the equator; only approx 500 miles of open ocean/land. 35 million years later, polar ice caps where almost gone. All this done by nature. Somewhat makes todays climate change look like chump change.
> 
> Not gibberish; cold hard fact. BTW that is the more correct spelling.


You are missing the point. Perhaps because there are those that cry out that we need to ""Save the planet". The planet doesn't need saving. It is humanity that will need to deal with the effects of climate change. 
People will be displaced by sea level rise.
Crops will Fail.
Tornadoes will be more powerful and last longer.
Rainstorms (Atmospheric rivers) will be more powerful and last longer.
Heat waves will reach higher temperatures and last longer
Droughts will be drier and last longer.

The Chicxulub impactor wiped out nearly all the life on earth, and live arose again - minus most of the dinosaurs. Climate change promises to make changes that we as a species don't actually want.


----------



## crjdriver

Oh, you mean science like this about global cooling which I learned was inevitable when I was in college. 
Source: Washington Post, July 9, 1971 
Seems like it did not happen. If you look, you can find all kinds of "Predictions" from so called experts that never happened.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Oh, you mean science like this about global cooling which I learned was inevitable when I was in college.
> Source: Washington Post, July 9, 1971
> Seems like it did not happen. If you look, you can find all kinds of "Predictions" from so called experts that never happened.


You're only cherry picking claims of the past.
I suspect counter claims can be found on just about every subject.
Do they invalidate reality?

A point.
About the scientific method.
Theories and hypotheses are always open to challenge.
That's how correction occurs.

Your 1971 news article has been corrected.


----------



## crjdriver

50 years from now, people will say the same thing about the climate change predictions of today. We will ask ourselves "How could we have believed that stuff"


----------



## crjdriver

My personal favorite was the peak oil issue. I was taught that we had already reached peak oil output in the late 1950s and we will run out of oil in 50yrs. Another one that did not happen. 
It is called agenda driven science.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> 50 years from now, people will say the same thing about the climate change predictions of today. We will ask ourselves "How could we have believed that stuff"


That's something you need to prove.
So prove it scientifically.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> My personal favorite was the peak oil issue. I was taught that we had already reached peak oil output in the late 1950s and we will run out of oil in 50yrs. Another one that did not happen.
> It is called agenda driven science.


I, for one, hope that we have passed "Peak Oil". With wind and solar now being cheaper than oil for electricity generation perhaps demand will continue to drop and with it production. 
I see nothing good in polluting air with the burning of fossil fuels.


----------



## crjdriver

Well, since the proof will not occur for 50yrs, we will have to wait. Point is that there are many so called "Truths" that prove to be false.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> I, for one, hope that we have passed "Peak Oil". With wind and solar now being cheaper than oil for electricity generation perhaps demand will continue to drop and with it production.
> I see nothing good in polluting air with the burning of fossil fuels.


We have not even come close to peak oil. Do you know how much of the ocean's floor has been explored for oil??? Well, it is a whopping 1%; we are nowhere near peak output of oil.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> My personal favorite was the peak oil issue. I was taught that we had already reached peak oil output in the late 1950s and we will run out of oil in 50yrs. Another one that did not happen.
> It is called agenda driven science.


All science is agenda driven at some level and challenge-able.

There is a limited quantity of that resource.
Claims were shown incorrect as more oil was discovered and new methods of extraction devised.

It doesn't change the fact that there is a limit to the volume of oil existing.
We just don't know it for sure....yet.

And it should be pointed out that the errors you pointed out are not a logical reason to disregard all scientific discovery.
It it were, you probably never would have had the opportunity to pilot an aircraft.
They are heavier than air, after all


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Well, since the proof will not occur for 50yrs, we will have to wait. Point is that there are many so called "Truths" that prove to be false.


Indeed, and another 50 and another 50 on and on.....using your logic.
And why even 50?
What is magical about that number?



> Point is that there are many so called "Truths" that prove to be false.


Sophistry.
At issue are data and theories.

You are only denying theories. You show no proof, evidence, or logical reasoning that puts doubt to the issue other than examples of correction involving different concerns.

You are challenging science, un-scientifically. One fallacy after another.


----------



## SeanLaurence

> I was taught that we had already reached peak oil output


The key word being "OUTPUT". If we can get off of oil, we should. Mining oil gets increasingly more expensive as reserves diminish. At some point it becomes less expensive to leave it in the ground. Improving alternate energy generation tech will make that happen faster.


----------



## crjdriver

Yeah, we will just use solar panels. My solar panels are not doing much today since they are under about 6" of snow. We still need some other method of generating pw; nuclear, oil, gas, hydro, etc.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> The key word being "OUTPUT". If we can get off of oil, we should. Mining oil gets increasingly more expensive as reserves diminish. At some point it becomes less expensive to leave it in the ground. Improving alternate energy generation tech will make that happen faster.


I suspect the majority of oil and coal derived energy sources will decline considerably over time.
As you've posted, the alternatives have become economically competitive.
But it won't be 100%.
EVs will soon challenge our old and dated electrical grid.
For a period, fission processes will be needed if oil and coal are to be significantly reduced. 
Gates is supposed to have an interesting project underway.
Alternates like solar and wind can fill a void, but fail with a 100% cycle demand.
There is still interesting work on fusion generators, but seems decades away.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Yeah, we will just use solar panels. My solar panels are not doing much today since they are under about 6" of snow. We still need some other method of generating pw; nuclear, oil, gas, hydro, etc.


Yes we do. I personally think that we are not putting enough effort into next generation nuclear. 
Wind and Solar needs large scale storage technology.
I believe most of my electricity in BC comes from Hydro, but there are few good sites left for further development on a world wide scale. This also ignores the environmental issues associated with damming rivers.
Etc includes Geothermal, which is great except for the high capital and maintenance costs.


----------



## Johnny b

More about Antarctic Ice, ocean levels and the impact upon heavily populated coast lines:

* 'The Fuse Has Been Blown,' and the Doomsday Glacier Is Coming for Us All *
https://news.yahoo.com/fuse-blown-doomsday-glacier-coming-140055846.html

It's a bit of a long read. Too much to copy and paste.

The last sentence stands out:


> One way or another, our future is written in ice.


----------



## Wino

I'm gonna enjoy not having to drive to Gulf Coast for beach front - should be just south of SATX rather than Corpus Christi - but it better hurry up!!


----------



## crjdriver

It must be global warming. Where I live, we have already had more snow than an entire winter. Someday common sense will breakout and people will stop worrying "The sky is falling" Earth has gone through much greater climate shifts in the past. Previous changes in climate make the current shift look rather insignificant.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> It must be global warming. Where I live, we have already had more snow than an entire winter. Someday common sense will breakout and people will stop worrying "The sky is falling" Earth has gone through much greater climate shifts in the past. Previous changes in climate make the current shift look rather insignificant.


Nah.....it's just local weather.

While you have snow, Ohio has been in the 50s and 60's with rain.

Weather is every day.
Climate is the average of many days.....very many.

Why deniers get that confused is beyond me.
Convenience?


----------



## crjdriver

I was making a joke. 
Still, this climate change is nothing compared to previous shifts in climate. I will worry when Saudia Arabia is again a rainforest [as it was in the past]


> Why deniers get that confused is beyond me


Climate change is real. The only thing we disagree on is the cause.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> ....................The only thing we disagree on is the cause.


Indeed.
I even disagree with the logic of your position 

( There are many causes. And man's participation is a new element, a new addition to the dynamic of global temperature change. )


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> And man's participation is a new element


One that pales into insignificance when you look at the global climate changes that have occurred in the past. Compared to those, this current climate change is nothing.


----------



## Wino

Past global climate changes did not threaten a civilized, widely populated, world. I use 'civilized' with tongue in cheek considering the world today, very questionable. Regardless of major cause, man is a contributor, albeit minor to mother nature.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> One that pales into insignificance when you look at the global climate changes that have occurred in the past. Compared to those, this current climate change is nothing.


And yet....temperature data along with industrialization show other than "nothing".
To deny that element, you need to show why. 
And posting the terms "insignificant" and "nothing" is irrelevant until you can produce an alternate theory explaining the increase in the "rate" of global warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## crjdriver

So, you are saying that the current very small increase in temp is the equal of having the polar ice caps extend almost to the equator OR having polar ice caps gone??? Makes perfect sense to me 
Do understand that those huge changes occurred in a relatively short period of time. They are of course dwarfed by the very mild upward trend in temp currently occurring.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> So, you are saying that the current very small increase in temp is the equal of having the polar ice caps extend almost to the equator OR having polar ice caps gone??? Makes perfect sense to me
> Do understand that those huge changes occurred in a relatively short period of time. They are of course dwarfed by the very mild upward trend in temp currently occurring.


I haven't said anything along the lines you are trying to imply.
Imo, your rant only works on lefies pushing a socialist cause.
I'm pointing out in this thread what is happening and projections into the near future because of them.

I relate to the science and the scientists that are recognized as experts in this particular field.

BTW, technically, we're still in an ice age because the poles still contain large amounts of ice.
Those ice fields have been retreating for thousands of years.
Man has recently sped up the melt.

You still aren't presenting an alternate theory that explains the sudden increase in the "rate" of global temperature change.

You do seem to admit there is the act occurring but deny it at the same time.

Can you present an alternate scientific theory/reason for the sudden rate change?


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> You still aren't presenting an alternate theory


Already explained. It is a natural process that man has little [if anything] to do with the phenomenon. 


> I relate to the science and the scientists that are recognized as experts in this particular field


I am assuming you mean the same "Experts" that predicated such catastrophic changes in the 1970s and 80s; those same experts?


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Already explained. It is a natural process that man has little [if anything] to do with the phenomenon.
> 
> I am assuming you mean the same "Experts" that predicated such catastrophic changes in the 1970s and 80s; those same experts?


You've made claims, I'll grant you that. But that's all.
No data to backup a theory you've not described. Just a claim that goes against the data collected.
As far as 'experts' you are referring to, that's for you to define. I have no idea who you are referring to.

Do you mean for all scientists to be ignored and rejected?

As far as the scientific method is concerned, scientific discovery and theories generated are intentionally open to challenge for the purpose of potential correction.
Obviously, lol, what you are referring to in the 70's and 80's has been corrected 

And if we use your logic, as I stated before, you never would have had a career in flight. No one would have gone to the moon. Most medicines would never have been discovered or created.
Why? Because there has always been someone proclaiming it couldn't be done using then current scientific understandings.

In a same way:

Toss in religion, anti-vaxxers and of course add politics, we have people claiming vaccines are more dangerous than the disease. Science along with data supporting vaccine benefits are being denied. Leading virologists and medical experts are derided while a pandemic spreads creating the most mortality in the denier ranks.

That's what denial of reality accomplishes.
Unnecessary challenges for survival.

Claiming incorrect scientific understandings of the past are a proof for denial, simply makes no sense.
It's the scientific understandings as we know and accept today, that should be the guide.


----------



## Chawbacon

Still going on about mankind's total carbon dioxide contribution to the atmosphere, eh? *Don't forget that is .001 percent of the total atmosphere. *

Now according to NASA the earth's seas have risen an average of 3.4 mm per year. Let's see... So that is a total of 3.7 inches in 28 years. Sea Level | Vital Signs - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)

Yep... Absolutely time to go into panic mode and sell that beach front condo and start rebuilding it on Mt. Everest.


----------



## crjdriver

I am often amused by so called "Experts" AND by some people's slavish adherence to belief in these experts [who are VERY often wrong]


> And if we use your logic, as I stated before, you never would have had a career in flight. No one would have gone to the moon


 In 1947 when [then] Capt. Yeagar broke the sound barrier, many so called experts said it could not be done. There was a wall that existed at Mach1 and any aircraft that attempted to break Mach1 would be destroyed. The belief was widely assumed even though we knew objects could go faster than sound. A .50 bullet exceeds the speed of sound with no problem at all.

Another group of "Experts" proved wrong.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> I am often amused by so called "Experts" AND by some people's slavish adherence to belief in these experts [who are VERY often wrong]
> In 1947 when [then] Capt. Yeagar broke the sound barrier, many so called experts said it could not be done. There was a wall that existed at Mach1 and any aircraft that attempted to break Mach1 would be destroyed. The belief was widely assumed even though we knew objects could go faster than sound. A .50 bullet exceeds the speed of sound with no problem at all.
> 
> Another group of "Experts" proved wrong.


All you presented was a correction of understanding 
and it was done by what became known and accepted as the 'new' experts that advanced aviation and weaponry.
There will always be groups proven wrong. 
At issue is the ability to accept correction to a fallacy.
Those that do, continue to lead and advance understanding.
Those that don't become markers of failure.

What makes you think it's any different in other areas of scientific advancement?

It's even happening in the field of computing.

Science is a concept of continually understanding the properties of the universe.
There's a lot to learn.
There will be mistakes.
Those that embrace the concept of the scientific method tend to be the experts that lead in their fields.


----------



## Johnny b

Chawbacon said:


> Still going on about mankind's total carbon dioxide contribution to the atmosphere, eh? *Don't forget that is .001 percent of the total atmosphere. *
> 
> Now according to NASA the earth's seas have risen an average of 3.4 mm per year. Let's see... So that is a total of 3.7 inches in 28 years. Sea Level | Vital Signs - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (nasa.gov)
> 
> Yep... Absolutely time to go into panic mode and sell that beach front condo and start rebuilding it on Mt. Everest.


Hi Jack 

See you're still in denial mode.

I suggest you don't panic, Trump was a loser and now he's even touting the benefits of vaccines as a way to get back in power.

Lol....you crazy guys 

Actually, for a family that's looking at empire building into the future, like a dozen generations or so, buying up large tracts of land inland now is a smart investment.
You might want to check that out..... some of the wealthy do seem to be buying up significantly large tracts of undeveloped land.
Buy now before inflation goes on a tear.....that's my advice to you


----------



## crjdriver

Johnny b said:


> All you presented was a correction of understanding


So, this correction would not apply to current "Climate" experts???


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> So, this correction would not apply to current "Climate" experts???


Specifically, what 'correction' are you referring to?


----------



## crjdriver

What I am referring to is simply this; are you accepting the current climate dogma as gospel and not subject to revision when proved wrong?


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> What I am referring to is simply this; are you accepting the current climate dogma as gospel and not subject to revision when proved wrong?


You obviously haven't been following what 'I' post.
I don't incite or promote panic.
I don't back the far left's goal of incorporating social justice into the issue.
I don't support the mentality of endless over spending as AOC has projected in the past
And I don't claim global warming can be stopped.

And you haven't addressed MY question.



> Specifically, what 'correction' are you referring to?


Is it even a scientifically generated hypothesis?
Please, share.


----------



## valis

crjdriver said:


> Already explained. It is a natural process that man has little [if anything] to do with the phenomenon.
> 
> I am assuming you mean the same "Experts" that predicated such catastrophic changes in the 1970s and 80s; those same experts?


Gotta say, thought you were just a plane driver. Didn't know you ventured into other sciences as an expert as well.



> Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.


link: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Yes, that's nasa.gov.

Having an opinion is one thing. Ignoring data presented in scientific circles is quite another. IMO, and obviously only my opinion, that's in the same category as anti-vaxxers or flat-earthers. The data set is there, greenhouse gasses have skyrocketed since the advent of the industrial age, and that's literally all there is to it. The earth IS warming, and humans HAVE contributed to it. That's it.

I know I won't change your mind and I won't even try. All I will say is just do some research on it yourself and look at the data regarding it. If you have already done so and still hold this view, good on you, but I will still think you are incorrect.

Happy and Safe New Year all!


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> ....................
> 
> Happy and Safe New Year all!


:up: 
Happy New Year to all.


----------



## Johnny b

Just an update on that 'Doomsday' glacier:

*Scientists Explore Thwaites, Antarctica's 'Doomsday' Glacier *
https://www.usnews.com/news/us/arti...explore-thwaites-antarcticas-doomsday-glacier



> Thirty-two scientists on Thursday are starting a more than two-month mission aboard an American research ship to investigate the crucial area where the massive but melting Thwaites glacier faces the Amundsen Sea and may eventually lose large amounts of ice because of warm water. The Florida-sized glacier has gotten the nickname the "doomsday glacier" because of how much ice it has and how much seas could rise if it all melts - more than two feet (65 centimeters) over hundreds of years.
> ...........
> Thwaites is putting about 50 billion tons of ice into the water a year.
> ................
> 
> Oregon State University ice scientist Erin Pettit said Thwaites appears to be collapsing in three ways:
> - Melting from below by ocean water.
> - The land part of the glacier "is losing its grip" to the place it attaches to the seabed, so a large chunk can come off into the ocean and later melt.
> - The glacier's ice shelf is breaking into hundreds of fractures like a damaged car windshield. This is what Pettit said she fears will be the most troublesome with six-mile (10-kilometer) long cracks forming in just a year.


----------



## Wino

> Thwaites is putting about 50 billion tons of ice into the water a year.


This begs the question -"which is heavier - a ton of water or a ton of ice???🤪


----------



## crjdriver

Wino said:


> This begs the question -"which is heavier - a ton of water or a ton of ice???🤪





Wino said:


> This begs the question -"which is heavier - a ton of water or a ton of ice???🤪


That is an easy one. 1 ton is 1 ton. The volume of each will be different however 2000lb=2000lb.


----------



## Wino

So 50 billion tons of melted ice would only put approx. 45.83 billion tons of water in the ocean?? Whew!! That's really good news. I was worried there for a moment.


----------



## Johnny b

* Climate change threatens one of world's biggest fish harvests *
https://www.science.org/content/article/climate-change-threatens-one-world-s-biggest-fish-harvests



> Now, scientists studying ancient sediments and fossils have shown warming waters once nearly eliminated this valuable resource, raising fears that today's climate change could repeat the disaster.


----------



## Johnny b

This is interesting and no doubt, much to consider with further indepth scientific investigation.

While Earth's surface has been heating up faster because of man's activities, the Earth's core has been cooling faster than once believed.

( Just don't panic  ......it's not happening tomorrow  )

* Earth's core is rapidly cooling, study reveals. Is our planet becoming 'inactive'? *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2022/01/19/earth-interior-cooling-faster-study/6576214001/


> Earth's interior is cooling faster than we previously estimated, according to a recent study, prompting questions about how long people can live on the planet.
> 
> There's no exact timetable on the cooling process, which could eventually turn Earth solid, similar to Mars.


The study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X21005859?via=ihub

pdf here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...761181d&pid=1-s2.0-S0012821X21005859-main.pdf

More info here:
https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/...inneres-kuehlt-schneller-ab-als-erwartet.html

hmmm? A burned out frozen planet. Deniers are going to have fun with this.


----------



## crjdriver

That the Earth's core is cooling is not news; this was taught in basic astronomy classes in college. The rate at which the cooling occurs, may [and probably will] change. This is just one of the many reasons why we need to colonize AND terraform the near planets. 
The Wright brothers first flew in 1903 [first flight approx 120 ft] Only 24yr later, Lindbergh flew 3500 miles over open ocean. Only 40yr after the Wrights flew, the Germans flew a swept wing jet. Only 66yr after the first flight, we landed on the Moon. The rate of advancement has slowed to a crawl; that needs to change.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> That the Earth's core is cooling is not news; this was taught in basic astronomy classes in college. The rate at which the cooling occurs, may [and probably will] change. This is just one of the many reasons why we need to colonize AND terraform the near planets.
> The Wright brothers first flew in 1903 [first flight approx 120 ft] Only 24yr later, Lindbergh flew 3500 miles over open ocean. Only 40yr after the Wrights flew, the Germans flew a swept wing jet. Only 66yr after the first flight, we landed on the Moon. The rate of advancement has slowed to a crawl; that needs to change.


That he core is cooling has been known for a while.
I became aware of in in the mid '60s taking geology courses at the college level.
It's the rate of cooling that has now come into focus and become a point of scientific interest.

A bit of reality, though.
Where global warming is ramping up, it's impact is noticeable in terms of human life spans.
From hundreds of years to thousands of years.
The cooling of the core is a geologic event that will likely be noticeable in terms of millions of years.

Relatively speaking, one is much more immediate than the other.
One we can influence, the other is going to happen and nothing we do will influence it.

Realistically, mankind's future is more dependent on finding a way to coexist with global warming.
The way civilization is going.....I don't think mankind will be much of an element in the Earth's biosphere in a million years.

I like the idea of solar exploration from a scientific pov, but I don't think it'll solve our existing conditions into the future and promote a solar based civilization at the same time. Too many people, not enough rides.
Colonies, perhaps. But more like outposts.

imo, of course


----------



## valis

crjdriver said:


> That the Earth's core is cooling is not news; this was taught in basic astronomy classes in college. The rate at which the cooling occurs, may [and probably will] change. This is just one of the many reasons why we need to colonize AND terraform the near planets.
> The Wright brothers first flew in 1903 [first flight approx 120 ft] Only 24yr later, Lindbergh flew 3500 miles over open ocean. Only 40yr after the Wrights flew, the Germans flew a swept wing jet. Only 66yr after the first flight, we landed on the Moon. The rate of advancement has slowed to a crawl; that needs to change.


totally agree. This is why I'm pretty stoked about the privatization of space flight....I really think this will greatly increase the advancement, both in tech and exploration. I highly doubt we will see a person walk on Mars in our lives, but who the heck knows. The Falcon Heavy can go beyond LEO, first one that could since the Saturn V, and that opens up a LOT of possibilities.

Should be a fun decade.


----------



## crjdriver

The first generation jets like the 707 or DC8 were faster than current jets. The convair 990 would even hit M.92 which is VERY fast for a sub-sonic jet. Modern jets cruise at M.75 to M.80 or so; slower than the 60yr old jets. 
While today's aircraft have better fuel economy, much more sophisticated navigation capability, and are quieter, they do not have the all out speed of the early jets.


----------



## valis

The potential is obviously there. You hit the nail on the head with fuel economy.


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> ............... I highly doubt we will see a person walk on Mars in our lives, but who the heck knows. ....................
> 
> Should be a fun decade.


In case you missed it I posted an ArsTechnica link in the Tech news forum about what it would take to colonize Mars.

IMO, interesting:

*Dr. Paul Sutter breaks down how hard it is to get to Mars-and then to live there*
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...r-away-than-it-seems-dr-paul-sutter-explains/

The problem I see with it is establishing the mindset to give up on Earth as a habitable planet along with most of humanity that won't get a ride for lift off. And then enforcing that mindset.
We can't even get everyone convinced to wear masks to save themselves.

cheerio......


----------



## SeanLaurence

Wino said:


> This begs the question -"which is heavier - a ton of water or a ton of ice???🤪


The reason why we worry about that Ice turning to water is that Ice is sitting on top of land. When it turns to water, it runs off into the sea. That is how the whole sea-level rise happens. Get it?


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> The first generation jets like the 707 or DC8 were faster than current jets. The convair 990 would even hit M.92 which is VERY fast for a sub-sonic jet. Modern jets cruise at M.75 to M.80 or so; slower than the 60yr old jets.
> While today's aircraft have better fuel economy, much more sophisticated navigation capability, and are quieter, they do not have the all out speed of the early jets.


I read the other day that this holds true for Military fighter jets as well. It was shown that dogfights happen at lower speeds anyway, and that it is better to make a plane with a lower top speed that can maneuver better and is lighter, cheaper and more reliable.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> The reason why we worry about that Ice turning to water is that Ice is sitting on top of land. When it turns to water, it runs off into the sea. That is how the whole sea-level rise happens. Get it?


65 million years ago, the polar ice caps just about did not exist. Sea levels were many, many feet higher than today. Pretty drastic climate change and no one was here burning fossil fuels. I am sure the "Experts" will blame that climate change on dinosaur farts.....


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> 65 million years ago, the polar ice caps just about did not exist. Sea levels were many, many feet higher than today. Pretty drastic climate change and no one was here burning fossil fuels. I am sure the "Experts" will blame that climate change on dinosaur farts.....


I'm pretty sure they wouldn't 
But ice caps have come and gone as the environment changed.
Some geological history:

https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/Educatio...Climate/How-Long-has-Earth-had-Polar-Ice-Caps


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> 65 million years ago, the polar ice caps just about did not exist. Sea levels were many, many feet higher than today. Pretty drastic climate change and no one was here burning fossil fuels. I am sure the "Experts" will blame that climate change on dinosaur farts.....


I think you are referring to the *Eemian* period where sea levels reached their highest levels 6 to 9 metres (20 to 30 feet) higher than today.
CO2 levels were at about 280 ppm and temperatures were 1 - 2 deg C higher on average than the current Holocene period. I imagine that it will take a while for the temps to rise past the levels of the Eemian period, but the ice will melt. Your denying the inevitable wont stop it from happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#:~:text=The Eemian (also called the,of the Last Glacial Period.


----------



## crjdriver

I am not denying anything; climate change is real. It is only the cause on which we differ. In the space of 35 million years [which is a very short time in the history of the Earth] The climate went from a planet almost covered in ice to one where ice was almost non-existent AND no humans involved.
When the climate even gets near one of those extremes, then I will worry.
Until then, I am not going to run around yelling "The sky is falling"


----------



## valis

It already HAS gotten there...thats the entire point. There is a plethora of data that actually shows this. The same data shows it is heavily influenced by anthropogenic causes. This is fact and cannot be refuted.

Do you believe in the flat earth theory, or the young earth creationists? Do you believe we landed on the moon?

It is literally the same argument. The data is there and we are responsible. If you choose to look at said data and still disagree....well, yer a flat earther in my book.


----------



## SeanLaurence

I suppose you look at climate like many look at covid: " It ain't going to bother me. It is just a flu, whatever."
There are some people that climate changer won't bother much. Where I live in Vancouver, BC, we have the moderating influence of the ocean to help moderate temperatures. That being said we had the longest and hottest heat wave on record last summer.

I suspect that most people that deny that current climate change is caused by human activity choose to believe that in order to accommodate the wish that they should not have to change their lives. Just like the covid deniers that don't want to wear face masks or get a vaccine. They do mental gymnastics to explain their position, and most will still not get sick. So they think they were right all along. 

The effects of climate change are not nearly as obvious as the effects of covid. God help us all with all the denialism out there.


----------



## valis

Yes it is cyclical...no argument there. My argument is that humans have HEAVILY contributed to this.


----------



## valis

SeanLaurence said:


> I suppose you look at climate like many look at covid: " It ain't going to bother me. It is just a flu, whatever."
> There are some people that climate changer won't bother much. Where I live in Vancouver, BC, we have the moderating influence of the ocean to help moderate temperatures. That being said we had the longest and hottest heat wave on record last summer.
> 
> I suspect that most people that deny that current climate change is caused by human activity choose to believe that in order to accommodate the wish that they should not have to change their lives. Just like the covid deniers that don't want to wear face masks or get a vaccine. They do mental gymnastics to explain their position, and most will still not get sick. So they think they were right all along.
> 
> The effects of climate change are not nearly as obvious as the effects of covid. God help us all with all the denialism out there.


Yup. Total agreeance.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> I am not denying anything; climate change is real. It is only the cause on which we differ.


You are arguing that because the planet has seen these extremes before we don't have to worry?
You are missing the point that WE AS A SPEICIES are in peril because of climate change. We have a hard enough time feeding ourselves as it is without the added burden of crop failures due to extreme weather events. (never mind the war in Ukraine)


----------



## crjdriver

We are not even close to the extremes I cited in post #694. We certainly do not have an ice covered planet AND the polar ice caps are still in existence. Climate change is a natural process driven by differences in solar output of energy.


----------



## valis

And if you dont think humans have driven it over the past couple centuries....well...


----------



## valis

Half of the earths populace lives in that circle. 3.5 billion or so. Note how much is water there.


----------



## valis

That water is only gonna rise and to think we didnt assist is foolish.


----------



## crjdriver

Humans [probably] have some impact however approx 97~98% of CO2 gas comes from the ocean NOT from burning fossil fuel. As insolation increases, the ocean warms and produces the gas. If you think crippling industries, putting people out of work, and gas prices through the roof for [at best] a 3% change, well......

On a side note, I just paid $5.05 per gallon this morning on my way home from the gym.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Humans [probably] have some impact however approx 97~98% of CO2 gas comes from the ocean NOT from burning fossil fuel. As insolation increases, the ocean warms and produces the gas. If you think crippling industries, putting people out of work, and gas prices through the roof for [at best] a 3% change, well......
> 
> On a side note, I just paid $5.05 per gallon this morning on my way home from the gym.


Where do you think the majority of CO2 in the oceans came from?
If you chose the atmosphere as the means, you'd be correct.
And oxidation of fossil fuels are one of the means of injecting CO2 into the atmosphere.

And what is your source for those CO2 statistics?


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> That water is only gonna rise and to think we didnt assist is foolish.


Indeed.
Furthermore, there are large concentrations of humanity on most of the continental coasts that will be affected. That will include many commercial and even industrial ventures.


----------



## crjdriver

I am not going to waste time arguing. I will most likely never convince you and I _know _you will not convince me of the different points of view. 
I am still waiting for the global cooling that is going to occur in the near future. That is what the so called experts said when I was in college. That and the fact that we have reached peak oil output [when only 1% of the ocean's floor has even been explored for oil]


----------



## Johnny b

valis said:


> Yes it is cyclical...no argument there. My argument is that humans have HEAVILY contributed to this.


Indeed.
I think the time is coming soon where methane will be the hot topic.
As the tundra melts, more and more methane is released.
And it's a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> I am not going to waste time arguing. I will most likely never convince you and I _know _you will not convince me of the different points of view.
> I am still waiting for the global cooling that is going to occur in the near future. That is what the so called experts said when I was in college. That and the fact that we have reached peak oil output [when only 1% of the ocean's floor has even been explored for oil]


Do you have a source for those CO2 stats?
If so, I'd like to read it.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> ............................
> 
> On a side note, I just paid $5.05 per gallon this morning on my way home from the gym.


Addressing your side note:

https://news.yahoo.com/from-the-newmaverse-democrats-republicans-and-gas-prices-133921112.html

Adjusted for inflation over time:



> I analyzed Energy Department data on gas real gas prices, adjusted for inflation, going back to 1976. That tells you the average price of gas, in 2022 dollars, for each of eight presidents going back to Jimmy Carter. Here's the average for each presidential term since then:














> Under Democrats Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and now Joe Biden, the average gas price has been $2.96 per gallon, in 2022 dollars. Under Republicans Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the average price was $2.84. So yeah, gas prices are higher under Democrats … by 12 cents.


And now we are involved in a conflict with Russia.
I suspect gas prices at the pump will go up a lot more and it's nothing to do with global
warming or climate change.


----------



## crjdriver

True it [gas price] has nothing to do with climate change; it has to do with stupid policies. In real terms, the gas price is not that high. When I first learned to drive, gas could be bought [during gas wars] for .23 cents a gallon AND that was 102~104 octane gas; not the 87octane we see today.

The big difference is that the quarter you used back then was silver AND if you had that same silver quarter, you could buy a gallon of gas today and even have some change. A silver quarter is worth approx $5.50 today.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> True it [gas price] has nothing to do with climate change; it has to do with stupid policies. In real terms, the gas price is not that high. When I first learned to drive, gas could be bought [during gas wars] for .23 cents a gallon AND that was 102~104 octane gas; not the 87octane we see today.
> 
> The big difference is that the quarter you used back then was silver AND if you had that same silver quarter, you could buy a gallon of gas today and even have some change. A silver quarter is worth approx $5.50 today.


I have a particular silver quarter. Last time I checked, it was valued at over $25K.
And that was over a decade ago,
But it has nothing to do with anything going on today 

Some 3 cent nickles, too.
A fist full of 2 cent pennies.
An Indian Head penny.
And some 'other stuff'.

I even have an all copper dime. 1985 P but it's only worth a couple dollars.

I remember the national gas war going on when I graduated from college. 
Shell Super was 17 cents a gallon.
Sweet deal....I was driving a SS Nova at the time.

But things change.


----------



## valis

Johnny b said:


> Indeed.
> I think the time is coming soon where methane will be the hot topic.
> As the tundra melts, more and more methane is released.
> And it's a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.


Methane is already being released at record levels.

Said it before....now we are just along for the ride. It wont affect us as we are old and fogeyish but it will def affect my son, all of 17.

Again...that pic that shows half the worlds populace is half water. That water is rising.

Lotta people affect by this.


----------



## Johnny b

I wish I'd never responded to the coins topic.
It's been a while since I've looked over the collection I inherited.
I decided I needed a peek.
Now I can't find my prized 25cent piece nor some other rare and unusual sterling silver objects.

Bummer of a day.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> True it [gas price] has nothing to do with climate change; it has to do with stupid policies. In real terms, the gas price is not that high.


Agreed, Inflation adjusted gas prices are not as bad as we perceive them. And cheap gasoline - and energy in general is a fantastic economic driver.

But we are all still perplexed as to why you have such strong denial with regards to the magnitude of the effects of human activity on the climate. You keep citing that short period in the 70's where a handful of scientists predicted a coming ice age and you use that as evidence that the science can't be trusted. I believe I debunked that to you long ago .
https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/...yth-and-time-magazine-covers-by-david-kirtley


----------



## crjdriver

It is MOST of the so called experts I doubt. Yes, the ones who told us about global cooling AND the ones who predicted we would run out of oil by the yr 2000. That one really gets me. 
Then there is this one that appeared in Life mag
"Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….

A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that 97.4% never materialized. 
AND these are the so called scientists you want to put unbridled faith in???
I am not even going to include the ones from Al Gore that did not happen since he is a complete moron.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> It is MOST of the so called experts I doubt. Yes, the ones who told us about global cooling AND the ones who predicted we would run out of oil by the yr 2000. That one really gets me.


I would like to see a citation of anyone credible that predicted that we would "Run out of oil by 2000". Most predictions are framed around "Peak Oil". Anyone talking about running out should not be listened to.



> Then there is this one that appeared in Life mag
> "Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….


 In the years after the first Earth Day, the Environmental Protection Agency was founded. Congress passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, among other powerful environmental laws. In short, Earth Day changed the trajectory of our country and, probably, the world
So apparently the gas mask quote was from a Life magazine article in a 1970 special "earth Day Edition"



> A study in the journal Nature Climate Change reviewed 117 climate predictions and found that 97.4% never materialized.


Your link is broken. It (the dead link) lives in a 2015 Fox news article that cites it.
to add context, Fox states: "Out of 117 predictions three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred" - So, no hint as to how much of an overstatement there was. And now the article is unavailable for review.
So, you will have to do better than citing a study that Fox news cherry picked and may have been retracted.



> AND these are the so called scientists you want to put unbridled faith in???
> I am not even going to include the ones from Al Gore that did not happen since he is a complete moron.


No, you are cherry picking. The overwhelming consensus is that climate change is a serious threat that needs to be dealt with.


----------



## crjdriver

And still you blindly believe the "Experts" 
Do some investigating on your own and see how often their "Predictions" are correct. 
Is climate change serious? Yes. Since it is a natural process, there is little we can do AND messing with a natural process is [to me] the height of arrogance. 
If you want to just accept what you are told, that is up to you. I put more faith in "Experts" that are actually correct once in a while.


----------



## valis

End of day?

CRJ is correct. Neither of us will convince the other. This is just fodder, but it IS nice to always see data


----------



## crjdriver

A really good example is you constantly hear that California is in a terrible drought. Well, I looked up the rainfall totals going back to 1940 and guess what??? California is getting about the same amount of rainfall it always has received. Some years a little less and some years a little more. California does not have a drought problem, it has an over population problem.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> And still you blindly believe the "Experts"
> Do some investigating on your own and see how often their "Predictions" are correct.
> Is climate change serious? Yes. Since it is a natural process, there is little we can do AND messing with a natural process is [to me] the height of arrogance.
> If you want to just accept what you are told, that is up to you. I put more faith in "Experts" that are actually correct once in a while.


How about posting the climate scientists, and their predictions, that you accept as experts.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> A really good example is you constantly hear that California is in a terrible drought. Well, I looked up the rainfall totals going back to 1940 and guess what??? California is getting about the same amount of rainfall it always has received. Some years a little less and some years a little more. California does not have a drought problem, it has an over population problem.


I don't live in California but I have farmed in Ohio and there have been years where droughts were both unexpected and severe......but that's more of a description of 'weather' than 'climate'


----------



## crjdriver

Climate is nothing more than weather over an extended period of time. At least that was what was taught when I went to school. 
The above example regarding California "Drought" is what I mean. Do not just accept what you read; investigate on your own and come to your own conclusions.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Climate is nothing more than weather over an extended period of time. At least that was what was taught when I went to school.
> The above example regarding California "Drought" is what I mean. Do not just accept what you read; investigate on your own and come to your own conclusions.


What is it you're reading that leads you to your conclusions?


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> And still you blindly believe the "Experts"


Well, yes. That is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Although I will note that intelligent species do have experts of their own, just not to the same degree. You manage to operate a computer that I am sure you have some idea about the working of, you would be completely incapable of building from scratch.



> Do some investigating on your own and see how often their "Predictions" are correct.


How correct? Climate science is hard and inexact. Predicting the weather is easier, and yet forecasts for hurricane tracks - the most critical forecasts to get right - are never perfect.


> Is climate change serious? Yes. Since it is a natural process, there is little we can do AND messing with a natural process is [to me] the height of arrogance.
> If you want to just accept what you are told, that is up to you. I put more faith in "Experts" that are actually correct once in a while.


You keep going back to the idea that warming is not human caused. Why? So that you can throw up your hands and give up on mitigating the damage it will do? Or are my suspicions correct and you just don't like the idea of being told what to do. You have a big truck that you don't want to give up or some other thing that you like that pollutes GHG's. 
The point of dealing with global warming is to ensure survival of the species. The only reason why knowing why the climate is changing is so that we can stop whatever it is so that it stops happening.

Since I am not a climate scientist, I need to rely on trustworthy sources (not you) to inform my opinions:
How about NASA?



> *The Role of Human Activity*
> 
> In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.
> 
> The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to about 417 parts per million in the last 151 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50-plus years.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/


They in turn look to the IPCC:
*https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf*.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Climate is nothing more than weather over an extended period of time. At least that was what was taught when I went to school.
> ..............


I think it would be better said.....climate is an average of weather and it's characteristics over a period of time.
For instance, not just rainfall totals, but seasonal variations also.


----------



## crjdriver

You can believe what you want. I know you are never going to change my mind on the cause of climate change. 
I would think that IF you are still around in 50yr or so you would be pretty embarrassed when the "Experts" are proven wrong again.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> You can believe what you want. I know you are never going to change my mind on the cause of climate change.
> I would think that IF you are still around in 50yr or so you would be pretty embarrassed when the "Experts" are proven wrong again.


You don't agree with experts but won't show your sources for what you do believe.
How did you come about forming these beliefs?
How can you convince anyone with out scientific explanations?

I won't be here in 50 years. IMO, irrelevant to the topic.
I view the issue from a scientific perspective I derive from experts.
And I do grade experts on their successes and how they handle their failures.

How do you determine who to believe?

In the Biden thread, a climate contrarian was noted by another member.
I pointed out he and his associate were taking large sums of funding for research from oil companies.
IMO, a good reason to look for built in bias in their results.
How do you judge experts....?


----------



## Johnny b

An impact of climate change.

* It's not just Glen Canyon-dams around the Southwest are taking a hit *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...n-dams-around-the-southwest-are-taking-a-hit/

Not a doomsday scenario, but imposing none the less.


----------



## Johnny b

* In a first, wind power is second-leading U.S. source of electricity in one day *
https://news.yahoo.com/in-a-first-w...urce-of-electricity-in-one-day-220541187.html



> Wind turbines generated more than 2,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity in the U.S. on Tuesday, March 29, more than was provided by nuclear and coal power plants that day. Wind power, which is renewable and does not release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, still trailed the electricity produced by natural gas, but it was the first time in U.S. history that wind turbines outperformed nuclear and coal power.


And this is undoubtedly a strong factor influencing the above:

* Building New Renewables Is Cheaper Than Burning Fossil Fuels *
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ables-cheaper-than-running-fossil-fuel-plants



> It's now cheaper to build and operate new large-scale wind or solar plants in nearly half the world than it would be to run an existing coal or gas-fired power plant.
> 
> That's the latest analysis from BloombergNEF, which sees that even with the risk of rising commodity prices, a new solar park or wind farm is still competitive with existing coal or gas plants in countries that represent 46% of the world's population.


----------



## crjdriver

Until the sun does not shine OR the wind stops blowing. I have solar panels at my house NOT because I am some kind of environmentalist; it is because;
1 We got a great deal on all of the hardware
2 I REALLY dislike the pw company and the fact that I basically have no electric bill


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Until the sun does not shine OR the wind stops blowing. I have solar panels at my house NOT because I am some kind of environmentalist; it is because;
> 1 We got a great deal on all of the hardware
> 2 I REALLY dislike the pw company and the fact that I basically have no electric bill


Good for you 

The pocketbook and capitalism wins at the same time as environmentalism.
I can live with that ....:up:


----------



## crjdriver

My wife's close friend's husband is an executive with the firm that supplies just about all contractors in the area. He got us all of the panels, mounting hardware, inverters, wiring, etc at their cost. 
It has been a very good investment. Now if you had to pay retail for the hardware, then it does not become all that great of a deal unless you live in the house for at least 10~12yr.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> My wife's close friend's husband is an executive with the firm that supplies just about all contractors in the area. He got us all of the panels, mounting hardware, inverters, wiring, etc at their cost.
> It has been a very good investment. Now if you had to pay retail for the hardware, then it does not become all that great of a deal unless you live in the house for at least 10~12yr.


Sorry, I don't understand your point as it applies to climate change.

My point in 
https://forums.techguy.org/threads/global-warming-climate-change.1219967/post-9890265
is that alternative sources of energy have become competitive and it's also rather obvious with technology advancing become even more advantageous.
It didn't used to be that way.
Times change.
Coal is no longer competitive. In that regard, government policies supporting the coal industry actually become agents of socialist intervention.
But of course, coal lobbyists seem to have convinced certain members of the GOP otherwise. And maybe a couple of Democrats, too LOL!

I applaud the efforts of those that promote conservation.
Thank you crj.
You are part of those 'changing times'.

( yeah, I know you don't see it that way.....but the pocketbook rules.  )


----------



## SeanLaurence

Johnny b said:


> An impact of climate change.
> 
> * It's not just Glen Canyon-dams around the Southwest are taking a hit *
> https://arstechnica.com/science/202...n-dams-around-the-southwest-are-taking-a-hit/
> 
> Not a doomsday scenario, but imposing none the less.


I have been keeping an eye on the status of the Colorado River water levels. Things are not looking promising for sure. 
The one thing the article is lacking is any mention of the current snowpack levels in the upper Colorado watershed. Last time I looked, they were at "Average" levels, but that was early in the season. A massive storm can change the situation.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Until the sun does not shine OR the wind stops blowing. I have solar panels at my house NOT because I am some kind of environmentalist; it is because;
> 1 We got a great deal on all of the hardware
> 2 I REALLY dislike the pw company and the fact that I basically have no electric bill


Here in British Columbia, most of the electricity is generated with Hydro. With low rates: $0.0939 CAD/kWh for the first 1376 kwh and $0.1408 after, it makes more sense to spend the money on an electric car than it does to cover your roof in Solar.

I just looked at one anecdote where a guy spent $30,000 to put in a system that produces $2000 worth of energy per year, So that is a 15 year payback, provided he does not have to spend anything on maintenance in that 15 years.


----------



## Johnny b

SeanLaurence said:


> I have been keeping an eye on the status of the Colorado River water levels. Things are not looing promising for sure.
> The one thing the article is lacking is any mention of the current snowpack levels in the upper Colorado watershed. Last time I looked, they were at "Average" levels, but that was early in the season. A massive storm can change the situation.


I haven't followed it, but it made me interested on how it fared historically.

https://snowpack.water-data.com/uppercolorado/index.php










Not well. And it looks like that area is entering a seasonal decline .


----------



## valis

Good read....

https://gizmodo.com/lake-powell-lake-mead-water-crisis-power-drought-west-1848800284



> The best available science indicates that the effects of climate change will continue to adversely impact the basin," Tanya Trujillo, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior, told seven states in a letter sent this week


----------



## Johnny b

Paul Sutter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_M._Sutter

*Exploring The Future Of Earth's Changing Climate | Edge Of Knowledge | Ars Technica *


----------



## mygenericemail

"Climate" change is called WEATHER.

It changes daily, and has been doing so ever since this planet was formed.
Unless this planet is physically destroyed and ceases to exist..........WEATHER will continue to do as it has done for millenia.........change.

This is a living planet, not a man-made piece of rock. It's constantly shifting, moving, and altering itself due to the cosmic happenings in the solar system. Mankind has NOTHING to do with this......never has, never will. AND ONLY MOTHER NATURE HAS THE POWER TO SHIFT OR CHANGE ANYTHING!!

LONG before "man" evolved, and long after "man" dies off...........the WEATHER and this planet, will continue to shift, alter, and change.


----------



## SeanLaurence

mygenericemail said:


> "Climate" change is called WEATHER.
> 
> It changes daily, and has been doing so ever since this planet was formed.
> Unless this planet is physically destroyed and ceases to exist..........WEATHER will continue to do as it has done for millenia.........change.
> 
> This is a living planet, not a man-made piece of rock. It's constantly shifting, moving, and altering itself due to the cosmic happenings in the solar system. Mankind has NOTHING to do with this......never has, never will. AND ONLY MOTHER NATURE HAS THE POWER TO SHIFT OR CHANGE ANYTHING!!
> 
> LONG before "man" evolved, and long after "man" dies off...........the WEATHER and this planet, will continue to shift, alter, and change.


Did you come here to troll or do you really belive this?
Climate and Weather are two distinct words with two distict meanings.
"Weather refers to short term atmospheric conditions while climate is the weather of a specific region averaged over a long period of time. Climate change refers to long-term changes."
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-diff...ers to short term,refers to long-term changes.

When you hear someone warning of impending climate change, it is not because the rock that is planet earth is at risk of anything, It is that WE HUMANS that rely on the earth's ecosystems to fuction in the consistent manner that we have built our societies on that are at risk.

And yes, Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, man has been releasing much more GHG into the environment than has been the case in human history, and that has objectivlybegun the heating process.

Look at this analogy: Have you ever gone to be cold? You toss on an extra blanket, but it does not help much. That is where we are now. We have added CO2 to the atmosphere that has started to trap some heat. After sleeping a few hours, you wake up steaming hot, so you throw off the blanket that had trapped in all that heat. You can't do that with Billions of tons of CO2


----------



## crjdriver

Yeah, that is why both the hottest AND coldest temps were encountered LONG before Man was on Earth. 
How do you explain those very large changes when there was no "Green House" gas to blame?


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Yeah, that is why both the hottest AND coldest temps were encountered LONG before Man was on Earth.
> How do you explain those very large changes when there was no "Green House" gas to blame?


Look at the 2nd paragraph I wrote and also consider that CO2 levels have fluctuated in earth's history. There is a correlation between CO2 levels and climate (global temperatures)
We don't wan't another Ice age or another Age where tropical plants grow at the poles.
Maybe what you should be arguing is that increases in temperatures will be good for us. Canadians and Russian will be able to farm on land further north.

Before you get started on that project, my understanding is that the damaged caused by extreme weather events and warmer temperatures will easily outweigh any possible benefits.


----------



## Johnny b

mygenericemail said:


> "Climate" change is called WEATHER.
> 
> It changes daily, and has been doing so ever since this planet was formed.
> Unless this planet is physically destroyed and ceases to exist..........WEATHER will continue to do as it has done for millenia.........change.
> 
> This is a living planet, not a man-made piece of rock. It's constantly shifting, moving, and altering itself due to the cosmic happenings in the solar system. Mankind has NOTHING to do with this......never has, never will. AND ONLY MOTHER NATURE HAS THE POWER TO SHIFT OR CHANGE ANYTHING!!
> 
> LONG before "man" evolved, and long after "man" dies off...........the WEATHER and this planet, will continue to shift, alter, and change.


You got the concept of weather correct, but that's all.

Climate is the historical averages of weather.
Weather changes.
And when weather changes it's seasonal average, climate change is noted.

The rest of your post is simply denial blather.


----------



## Johnny b

crjdriver said:


> Yeah, that is why both the hottest AND coldest temps were encountered LONG before Man was on Earth.
> How do you explain those very large changes when there was no "Green House" gas to blame?





> How do you explain those very large changes when there was no "Green House" gas to blame?


Geologically.....the Earth had a different environment and a different biosphere, those forcings we spoke of had different values.

The other denier claims the Earth changes and you just implied the Earth's environment is static.

The Earth does change


----------



## valis

crjdriver said:


> Yeah, that is why both the hottest AND coldest temps were encountered LONG before Man was on Earth.
> How do you explain those very large changes when there was no "Green House" gas to blame?


Micro vs Macro is the easiest way...


----------



## Noyb

More heat = more energy = more extreme weather.
Once every hundred year storms are now occurring every year.

Could the fact that we're in a mini ice age be helping us.
https://www.almanac.com/solar-minimum-approaching-mini-ice-age


----------



## Johnny b

Noyb said:


> .............................
> 
> Could the fact that we're in a mini ice age be helping us.
> https://www.almanac.com/solar-minimum-approaching-mini-ice-age


As far as facts go, it hasn't happened, really a big 'if' to consider and as that article ( written 4 years ago ) stated


> We'll have to wait and see.


So far, I haven't read of any climate change in the last 4 years that would be considered the beginning of a 'mini ice age'.

As I remember, it was Mann's tree ring data that showed the Little Ice Age was largely regional with many considerations for cause and effect.

Here's a pdf by M.E. Mann you might find interesting to read.


----------



## Johnny b

Of interest:

* Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere soars to levels not seen for millions of years, NOAA says *
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/06/03/earth-carbon-dioxide-levels-noaa/7502392001/



> The amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is now more than 50% higher than pre-industrial times - and is at levels not seen since millions of years ago when Earth was a hothouse ocean-inundated planet, federal government scientists announced Friday.
> .............
> Prior to the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels were consistently around 280 ppm for almost 6,000 years of human civilization, NOAA said. Since then, humans have generated an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of carbon dioxide pollution, much of which will continue to warm the atmosphere for thousands of years.


----------



## Johnny b

Plant more trees and stop global warming?
There maybe a catch scientists are now becoming aware of.

It involves a reactive substance discovered in large quantities in the atmosphere.
And it appears much comes from trees.

Hydrotrioxide.
*Millions of tons of a strange new chemical were discovered in Earth's atmosphere *
https://news.yahoo.com/millions-tons-strange-chemical-were-141400677.html

* New, extremely reactive chemical discovered in the atmosphere *
https://www.livescience.com/reactive-chemical-hydrotrioxides-atmospher

About those trees:

*There's hydrotrioxides in the air *
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/hydrotrioxides-are-in-the-air/4015751.article


> Hydrotrioxide compounds feature a row of three oxygen atoms bonded to one another. This makes them even more reactive than peroxides - the better-known class of often explosive compounds that feature two oxygens bonded to each other.
> ...........
> They calculate that isoprene - a hydrocarbon emitted in large quantities by trees - could degrade into around 10 million tonnes of hydrotrioxide annually. Hydrotrioxides 'represent a previously omitted substance class in the atmosphere, the impact of which needs to be examined', the team notes.


----------



## Johnny b

* Impact of reading about climate science goes away almost instantly *
https://arstechnica.com/science/202...t-climate-science-goes-away-almost-instantly/



> A new study offers an additional hint as to why. While polarization and misinformation both play roles in how the public interprets climate science, the biggest problem may be that the public has a very short memory, and anything people learn about climate science tends to be forgotten by a week later.


Translation: The world is overpopulated with mouth breathers.


----------



## crjdriver

Oh no. Now the environmental police will want controls on volcanos.
Tonga volcano sent tons of water into the stratosphere, which could warm Earth : NPR


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Oh no. Now the environmental police will want controls on volcanos.
> Tonga volcano sent tons of water into the stratosphere, which could warm Earth : NPR


You are dunking on climate science? 
Volcanoes ae a great wildcard when it comes to global temperatures. When Krakatoa erupted in 1887, the earth experienced a cooling cycle for the next 4 years. This offset the warming caused by the emissions of the industrial revolution. 
If this Tonga volcano has the effect as stated in the article, we will have some exceptionally hot summers in parts of the world.
Remember: the world will keep spinning whether humans populate it or not. The changing climate only really affects our own survival as a species.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> You are dunking on climate science?


Agenda driven "Science" Gee, Krakatoa caused cooling and this volcano will cause a temp increase??? Seems logical to me. Let's send greata to get to the bottom of this conundrum.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Agenda driven "Science" Gee, Krakatoa caused cooling and this volcano will cause a temp increase??? Seems logical to me. Let's send greata to get to the bottom of this conundrum.


The only agenda I see here is yours. I read the news of the January eruption and hoped that it would give us some respite from global warming while we (as a species) get our acts in gear. 
If you don't understand the science then I suggest you re-read it. Here is a link to the source study cited by the article that you linked:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2022GL099381


----------



## crjdriver

You keep running around in circles yelling the sky is falling, the sky is falling. 
When climate change gets to the level of ice covering most of the Earth or Polar ice caps gone [which both have happened in the past LONG before anyone burned fossil fuels]
Then I will worry. You just cannot understand that climate change is a natural process. Happened before man was here and will happen after man is gone.


----------



## SeanLaurence

While you keep running around exclaiming "What? Me Worry?" 
Do you remember the argument that counters: "climate change is a natural process. Happened before man was here and will happen after man is gone."?
Hint: I already used it in my first reply to you today: "The changing climate only really affects our own survival as a species" The climate is changing much faster than it ever has in history - with the exception of extinction events caused by massive asteroid strikes.

We populate the planet to a much greater degree than we have in any time in human history, and we all need a place to live. If you live in a place that has favorable living conditions (as I do) then you can expect people to migrate to where you are to escape the areas that are less habitable. Or do you live in the South West US and depend on Colorado River water?


----------



## crjdriver

Let's see;


> "The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years," ecologist Kenneth Watt said in 1970. "If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."





> *Prediction #2: If global warming isn't reversed by the year 2000, it will be too late to avert catastrophe*
> That was the 1989 prediction by Noel Brown, an environmentalist apparatchik at the U.N. - that global body that has brought us so much rubbish when it comes to failed global warming predictions.





> *Prediction #3: We'll be living in Antarctica pretty soon*
> Ten years ago, a group called Forum for the Future predicted that we would be living in a world so dire that we would actually have to move to Antarctica as "climate refugees."
> 
> The 2008 study produced what the U.K. Telegraph very charitably called "a radical set of 'possible futures,'" among them that the first climate refugees would begin flooding our planet's icy, southernmost when temperatures made everywhere else too hot to live.





> *Prediction #4: Great Britain will be almost snow-less thanks to global warming*
> Back in 2000, climate scientist David Viner had a very dire prediction for those living in England: Snow was going to become almost extinct there.
> 
> Feb. 27, 2018 to be exact - here was the first paragraph of a story from the U.K. Express: "London has been hit by a wall of snow in a huge blizzard as the UK is rocked by bone-chilling temperatures, ice and wintry weather


The list goes on and on and yet you blindly believe these "Predictions" You better hurry and get to Antarctica 

Note that some of these so called scientists made these predictions as late as the year 2000.


----------



## SeanLaurence

That Kenneth Watt citation is broken. It seems that "The Western Journal implemented stricter editorial standards" and has removed the article.
So I attempted to find the quote and found this: "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution," reported Life magazine in 1970. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable," said ecologist Kenneth Watt"
Of course Nixon created the EPA and things were done.. So the prediction did not come to pass because we did something about DDT and nitrogen dioxide and particulate pollution.

"Prediction #2: If global warming isn't reversed by the year 2000, it will be too late to avert catastrophe" It may well be too late. This assertion has not been proven wrong.

"Prediction #3: We'll be living in Antarctica pretty soon" - from the article: : "Refugees are expected to move to Antarctica because of the rising temperatures that will see the population of the continent increase to 3.5 million people by *2040*."
It is not 2040 yet, and the article refers to a report from a "Think Tank" which is different from"Client Scientists" I think that the report is somewhat hyperbolic. Realistically there are many reasons that it is unlikely that Antarctica will not be settled / colonised to any significant degree.

"Prediction #4: Great Britain will be almost snow-less thanks to global warming" Obviously David Viner got this one wrong. It seems that he did not see polar vortexes being created by climate change.

"Global warming does not lead to increased snowstorms everywhere. They only increase in colder regions where the temperature still remains below freezing despite warming trends. Snowstorms are currently decreasing in warmer areas. Overall, the total amount of snow cover has shown a long-term decreasing trend.

So to summate, record snowfall neither proves nor disproves global warming. However, the increasing trend in extreme precipitation events is consistent with global warming. And this will lead to increased snowstorms in certain, colder regions."
https://skepticalscience.com/Does-record-snowfall-disprove-global-warming.html

You are cherry picking articles to confirm your bias. Credible scientists the world over do say that Global Warming is real and we are feeling the effects of it. Sometimes science gets things wrong. Your handpicked anecdotes illustrate how that sometimes happens. You know what else happens? Oil Companies spread propaganda to make people believe that there is not a climate issue in order to maintain their businesses. Russia also produces pro Oil propaganda as Oil sales to Europe is a massive part of their economy.


----------



## crjdriver

Of course global warming is real. What I dispute is the cause. It is a natural process.
BTW those articles were just a VERY few; the list went on and on. I did not even get into the predictions of Al Gore [however I would hardly call him a scientist] more like a con-artist. 
Point being that you put so much trust in these so-called experts; whose "Facts" have changed over the years.
I am still waiting for the global cooling I was told was inevitable when I was in college. Yeah, I guess those "Scientists" were wrong also.


----------



## SeanLaurence

The question becomes: "Why" do you think that Global warming is real, but that it is not the result of human activity? Are you invested in Oil or Coal? Do you own a gas guzzling vehicle? Do you love the smell of petroleum exhaust?

These experts that made predictions in the 1970's that did not come true are not the same experts that are sounding the alarm today. You appear that you think that they are.
Climate science has evolved substantially since the 1970's. Weather observations have improved a great deal with satellite, sensor and communication tech improving as well as computer capacity and modeling algorithms. You need to stop going back to 1970's "Global Cooling" as an excuse to dismiss this century's reality.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> The question becomes: "Why" do you think that Global warming is real, but that it is not the result of human activity?


Really??? Please tell me what caused the polar ice caps to extend almost to the equator???? No one was here burning any fossil fuel. When you can explain that one, you will already have the cause of the current climate change. 


> Are you invested in Oil or Coal


Yes. I have a lot of investments and oil companies are one of them. 
When I was flying airliners, I always prided myself on having the largest carbon footprint in the company AND most of the time arrived 20~30min early so the crew got a little break.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> Really??? Please tell me what caused the polar ice caps to extend almost to the equator????


Yes. I have a lot of investments and oil companies are one of them.
When I was flying airliners, I always prided myself on having the largest carbon footprint in the company AND most of the time arrived 20~30min early so the crew got a little break.

Well, I am no expert, but wikipedia suggests some ideas:


> The causes of ice ages *are not fully understood* for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial-interglacial periods within an ice age. The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition, such as the concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane (the specific levels of the previously mentioned gases are now able to be seen with the new ice core samples from EPICA Dome C in Antarctica over the past 800,000 years); changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun known as Milankovitch cycles; the motion of tectonic plates resulting in changes in the relative location and amount of continental and oceanic crust on Earth's surface, which affect wind and ocean currents; variations in solar output; the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system; the impact of relatively large meteorites and volcanism including eruptions of supervolcanoes.
> 
> There is evidence that greenhouse gas levels fell at the start of ice ages and rose during the retreat of the ice sheets, but it is difficult to establish cause and effect





crjdriver said:


> No one was here burning any fossil fuel. When you can explain that one, you will already have the cause of the current climate change.


Umm... You have it backwards: The Greenhouse effect that is responsible for global warming is caused by the release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.


crjdriver said:


> Yes. I have a lot of investments and oil companies are one of them.


Well then, it appears that you might be biased based on your own self interest.
Your history with the Airline industry would also suggest that much of your life has been spent around like minded people who also knew that their livelihood might be affected by climate change mitigation.

The goal is not to shame you for past practices, rather, it is to get everyone to recognise that there is a problem and to work towards solving the it.


----------



## crjdriver

SeanLaurence said:


> Umm... You have it backwards: The Greenhouse effect that is responsible for global warming is caused by the release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.


You are still not getting it. There was no burning of fossil fuels when the ice caps extended almost to the equator nor was there any burning of fossil fuels when the ice caps did not exist [or almost non-existent]
Much larger climate change than we see today.
So, the question remains; what caused this enormous climate shift???? Just think about it for a min or two. The Earth went from being almost covered in ice to the Middle East being a rainforest [that is why there is so much oil in the area] AND no fossil fuels being used.
I know, it must have been dinosaur farts that caused the climate change 


> The goal is not to shame you for past practices


I have no shame at all. You are correct. Most [however not all] aviators have their head on straight and do not buy into smoke and mirrors to explain what is a very simple concept; the cause of climate change.

BTW I was taught the cause of climate change in astronomy/physics in college. You do understand that climate change occurs on other planets; not just Earth.


----------



## SeanLaurence

crjdriver said:


> You are still not getting it. There was no burning of fossil fuels when the ice caps extended almost to the equator nor was there any burning of fossil fuels when the ice caps did not exist [or almost non-existent]
> Much larger climate change than we see today.


Did you not read the Wikipedia excerpt that I quoted. It was clear. The one thing that it did not address is the timeline of how long it took for these climactic changes to occur. The reason why this is important is that life on earth can adapt and evolve to gradual change, while the relatively sudden changes we are currently experiencing will stress out the ecosystems that we depend on for our survival beyond their capacity to adapt.


----------



## crjdriver

Oh no. The LGMs must be burning fossil fuels 😱😱😱 Send Al Gore. 
Evidence for Recent Climate Change (nasa.gov)
Climate change [regardless of planet] is driven by natural processes.


----------

