More Climate BS...

[BernardKingGOAT]

AI is going to force a transition to more nuclear energy.

Hope so

 

[LouderVol]

Ozone does play a role, yes. Ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere due to CFCs did/does actually contribute significantly to cooling at that elevation. As you go higher in the stratosphere and beyond, that ozone influence disappears, while the cooling effect of CO2 remains (actually increasing with elevation). And the ozone layer is well on its way to recovery, so the contribution of ozone depletion to lower stratospheric cooling has diminished over time.

I know you as a poster genuinely interested in fact-finding. Glad this caught your interest! It sounds like maybe you’re referring to the rising tropopause (boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere) which is related to stratospheric cooling. I think you’ll find it worthwhile to look into these topics.


On the link, it's a pretty ridiculous headline. I saw it posted a while back. That aerosol pollution has a cooling effect on climate is not news. In fact the *very few* scientists who predicted cooling in the ‘70s did so based on aerosol pollution. We addressed that with the Clean Air Act. It’s not an effect of climate policy per se, as was insinuated ITT. We cleaned up the smog, and the “unintended consequence” (which was entirely known) is that less clouds mean less reflectivity mean slightly more warming. What, would you rather we put the smog back? How about we block out some sunlight with a nice nuclear winter? I kid, but there are real proposals to try to alter Earth’s reflectivity via cloud seeding etc (climate geoengineering). Talk about unintended consequences!

Yeah I would have to find the study to really dive into the science.

what I am remembering (take with a grade of slaw) is that due to the chemical composition changing in the air we were seeing the various stratification show up more strongly due to densities. From my understanding of fluid dynamics this is a pretty accepted happening when you have two layers of different compositions you get different heat transfer than you would if the mix was all the same. kinda like when diving you as you get deeper you will cross various barriers where the lower layer is noticeably cooler than the layer above, with very little to no temp transition. under that understanding if the temperature isn't able to balance out, you could conceivably have layers doing different things thermally. to me it makes sense that the lower layer is warming as we are producing more and more heat down here, and that heat can't escape up.

to your point about it being know by some, that is the issue. that type of knowledge was never shared as part of common knowledge. the known effects of all these changes wanted to combat climate change never make it to the public realm to really be considered. if nothing else it changes/shapes the discussion and I think that type of omission is one of the things that makes the subject so divisive.

 

[LouderVol]

A whole lot of people don’t have much choice in the matter. They’re born where they’re born and take up their parents’ vocations. It’s not much an issue of smart and dumb.

and?

the rest of us should pay the price for the choice someone else didn't make? do we not get the same benefit of the doubt you are giving them?

 

[EasternVol]

and?

the rest of us should pay the price for the choice someone else didn't make? do we not get the same benefit of the doubt you are giving them?

I'm not sure what you're on about. Who said anything about paying a price?

 

[OHvol40]

Want to take a swing?

As soon as you explain which parts of that report are heresy and unproven theories. (Hint: there are policy proposals IN the report). I won’t hold my breath

 

[rikberry31]

I wasn't trying to insinuate anything. I was curious. One of my golf buddies is a retired professor of physics. And yes, he is the stereotypical professor. We have to remind him quite often to pick up the wedge he left by the green

I haven't golfed in thirty years. Used to play a lot until I got into coaching, had a family and then I didn't have the time. Now if I swung a club, both of my arms would come of. It would be like that old SNL skit of the All Drug Olympics.

 

[rikberry31]

there are proposed solutions to put partial sun shades into orbit if it ever becomes necessary (true story)

Man is pretty arrogant in that he thinks he can control the laws nature and God . Life is fragile and mankind is powerless to do anything about it. Safety and security are an illusion. Don't be stupid and reckless, but your destiny is in God's hands.

"Men prepare for war but safety is in the hands of the Lord."

 

[Rickyvol77]

If you don’t believe in using nuclear and hydroelectric power and you don’t believe in severing punishing China and India you have no solution to either climate “change” or pollution in general

 

[LouderVol]

I'm not sure what you're on about. Who said anything about paying a price?

all the climate change bs comes with a cost. often without achieving the desired results.

Not sure if it was this thread or another where I was the first to warn about the A2L refrigerants being pushed. that was under the guise of fighting climate change, and it was really just grift while making things more expensive for Americans.

 

[rikberry31]

Tell NASA and the NOAA.

Their own data says it was hotter in the 30's. They try to BS it by saying that it is only the U.S. where it was hotter. They "estimate" the temps (fudge the numbers) in places that did not have accurate temperature records.
It's all . They are no different than the white coat "scientist" in the commercial selling a pill that gives you rock hard ab in a month without working out.

Reconstructed climate data refers to scientific information about Earth’s past weather and climate conditions, gathered from periods before direct thermometer or satellite measurements existed. It relies on a blend of natural environmental records (proxies) and rescued historical documents to model ancient and historical climates. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

climateaudit.org

 

[rikberry31]

Well, there it is...

Rik's position was somewhat common on this board 15+ years ago. It's telling how out of place it is now. You too have come a long way, VN!

Prove that the earth has not been in a cool period for almost a decade. You are the one who is stuck in the past, the bogus Hockey Stick was over 25 years ago. That is bedrock that your assertions rest on and it has been proven to be .
Why do you call it climate change now and not global warming?

 

[LouderVol]

Their own data says it was hotter in the 30's. They try to BS it by saying that it is only the U.S. where it was hotter. They "estimate" the temps (fudge the numbers) in places that did not have accurate temperature records.
It's all . They are no different than the white coat "scientist" in the commercial selling a pill that gives you rock hard ab in a month without working out.

Reconstructed climate data refers to scientific information about Earth’s past weather and climate conditions, gathered from periods before direct thermometer or satellite measurements existed. It relies on a blend of natural environmental records (proxies) and rescued historical documents to model ancient and historical climates. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

climateaudit.org

that is one of my problems with how they calculate things, they run various "models". which are essentially the same equation but they put in different variables. they run enough models with enough variables and they generate the outcome they want, no matter how bad it misses to reality. there is never a real check on the accuracy of the models they claim.

Al Gores no glaciers in 20 years, more than 20 years ago, was a model. as Bart pointed out they finally had to retire their worst case scenario model that spurred all the changes, because of how far off reality has proven to be. Even individual aspects they have been wrong about, but they won't publicly go back to revisit the models. Things like sea levels have proven out to be higher in reality than the models predicted, largely because they never actually went out to establish what the baseline actually is. in all likelihood the sea level was higher to begin with; but they claim because the model said it "should" be low and the first actual measurement was different there must have been "unprecedented" sea level changes.

there is so much data manipulation its hard to take seriously.

 

[rikberry31]

that is one of my problems with how they calculate things, they run various "models". which are essentially the same equation but they put in different variables. they run enough models with enough variables and they generate the outcome they want, no matter how bad it misses to reality. there is never a real check on the accuracy of the models they claim.

Al Gores no glaciers in 20 years, more than 20 years ago, was a model. as Bart pointed out they finally had to retire their worst case scenario model that spurred all the changes, because of how far off reality has proven to be. Even individual aspects they have been wrong about, but they won't publicly go back to revisit the models. Things like sea levels have proven out to be higher in reality than the models predicted, largely because they never actually went out to establish what the baseline actually is. in all likelihood the sea level was higher to begin with; but they claim because the model said it "should" be low and the first actual measurement was different there must have been "unprecedented" sea level changes.

there is so much data manipulation its hard to take seriously.

Now they are backpeddling and give lame azz excuses like increased renewable energy has slowed the pace when it was all about money and grants. All politically motivated and total . I have been vilified for years.
Yet look at the people on here who still peddle this crap. The left is wrong on everything, not just climate.

Can we all get a refund? Now UN climate experts admit climate change won’t destroy Earth tomorrow

Apocalyptic climate-change predictions were box-office gold for Hollywood but they did untold damage to the public psyche, economy and the average man’s pocketbook.

nypost.com

 

[LouderVol]

Now they are backpeddling and give lame azz excuses like increased renewable energy has slowed the pace when it was all about money and grants. All politically motivated and total . I have been vilified for years.
Yet look at the people on here who still peddle this crap. The left is wrong on everything, not just climate.

Can we all get a refund? Now UN climate experts admit climate change won’t destroy Earth tomorrow

Apocalyptic climate-change predictions were box-office gold for Hollywood but they did untold damage to the public psyche, economy and the average man’s pocketbook.

nypost.com

for me, a lot of it goes back to messaging. which has been an issue with the man made climate change argument since Obama. They pushed the worst case scenario as if it was the ONLY outcome. even if it was the politicians just running with something, the scientists never called them out. Instead we got the lie that the science was settled and there was no disagreement amongst serious scientists. but those scientists actively supported the lies, never once put the truth to the lie. and even now that the worst case scenario is off the table, the science is still "settled" I am sure.

 

[rikberry31]

for me, a lot of it goes back to messaging. which has been an issue with the man made climate change argument since Obama. They pushed the worst case scenario as if it was the ONLY outcome. even if it was the politicians just running with something, the scientists never called them out. Instead we got the lie that the science was settled and there was no disagreement amongst serious scientists. but those scientists actively supported the lies, never once put the truth to the lie. and even now that the worst case scenario is off the table, the science is still "settled" I am sure.

The scientist and universities were lining their pockets and the politicians were raising money and getting kick backs. Believe it or not most politicians make their money off of fraud. The climate change hoax was one of the biggest cash cows in history. Jed Clampett had to find oil.

 

[BartW]

Their own data says it was hotter in the 30's. They try to BS it by saying that it is only the U.S. where it was hotter. They "estimate" the temps (fudge the numbers) in places that did not have accurate temperature records.

Oh, I didn't know America was the only country with thermometers in the 1930s

 

[BartW]

Prove that the earth has not been in a cool period for almost a decade.

WMO confirms 2025 was one of warmest years on record​

The global average surface temperature was 1.44 °C (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.13 °C) above the 1850-1900 average, according to WMO’s consolidated analysis of eight datasets. Two of these datasets ranked 2025 as the second warmest year in the 176-year record, and the other six ranked it as the third warmest year.

The past three years, 2023-2025, are the three warmest years in all eight datasets. The consolidated three-year average 2023-2025 temperature is 1.48 °C (with a margin of uncertainty of ± 0.13 °C) above the pre-industrial era. The past eleven years, 2015-2025, are the eleven warmest years in all eight datasets.

“The year 2025 started and ended with a cooling La Niña and yet it was still one of the warmest years on record globally because of the accumulation of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Meanwhile there’s another Super El Nino brewing, likely to make 2027 the hottest year on record.

Where’s that cool period?

 

[ButchPlz]

WMO confirms 2025 was one of warmest years on record​

Meanwhile there’s another Super El Nino brewing, likely to make 2027 the hottest year on record.

Where’s that cool period?

Why do we only care about 150 years in a planet that is apparently 4.5 billion years old?

 

[BartW]

to your point about it being know by some, that is the issue. that type of knowledge was never shared as part of common knowledge. the known effects of all these changes wanted to combat climate change never make it to the public realm to really be considered. if nothing else it changes/shapes the discussion and I think that type of omission is one of the things that makes the subject so divisive.

I mean, it’s in the IPCC reports and published literature for many decades, it’s pretty common knowledge among relevant professionals. It's come up here on VN. You are right that scientists are poor communicators. The subject matter is difficult enough as it is, and then often hidden behind enormous paywalls. Now it gets communicated through pop-science websites like Earth.com which definitely don’t care about accurate and thorough education, only clicks.

I'm not sure if I was clear either so just to re-iterate: the reduction of aerosols was not to combat climate change, it was to combat smog. And the actions taken in the US to reduce smog predate any climate policy.

 

[BartW]

Al Gores no glaciers in 20 years, more than 20 years ago, was a model. as Bart pointed out they finally had to retire their worst case scenario model that spurred all the changes, because of how far off reality has proven to be. Even individual aspects they have been wrong about, but they won't publicly go back to revisit the models. Things like sea levels have proven out to be higher in reality than the models predicted, largely because they never actually went out to establish what the baseline actually is. in all likelihood the sea level was higher to begin with; but they claim because the model said it "should" be low and the first actual measurement was different there must have been "unprecedented" sea level changes.

Can you reference the Al Gore “no glaciers in 20 years” model? I’ve never heard of that. Admittedly, I’ve never watched his film. But I think I would have heard of it, and google came up empty.

You’ve misunderstood the RCP8.5 news. It’s not a prediction of warming. It’s an emissions scenario. Models use a range of emissions scenarios to project temperature etc. The retirement of RCP8.5 does not imply anything about model accuracy or climate sensitivity to CO2. It’s just saying, the worst case emissions scenario at the time (2011) is no longer a realistic emissions scenario. Because there has been progress in reducing emissions since then. Here’s a detailed explanation.

Also not sure what you’re on about with sea level rise. It has risen slightly faster than the early IPCC reports projected, confirmed by satellite measurements.

 

[PEPPERJAX]

Can you reference the Al Gore “no glaciers in 20 years” model? I’ve never heard of that. Admittedly, I’ve never watched his film. But I think I would have heard of it, and google came up empty.

You’ve misunderstood the RCP8.5 news. It’s not a prediction of warming. It’s an emissions scenario. Models use a range of emissions scenarios to project temperature etc. The retirement of RCP8.5 does not imply anything about model accuracy or climate sensitivity to CO2. It’s just saying, the worst case emissions scenario at the time (2011) is no longer a realistic emissions scenario. Because there has been progress in reducing emissions since then. Here’s a detailed explanation.

Also not sure what you’re on about with sea level rise. It has risen slightly faster than the early IPCC reports projected, confirmed by satellite measurements.

Al Goober's comments about glaciers were in the inconvenient douchebag documentary.

 

[LouderVol]

I mean, it’s in the IPCC reports and published literature for many decades, it’s pretty common knowledge among relevant professionals. It's come up here on VN. You are right that scientists are poor communicators. The subject matter is difficult enough as it is, and then often hidden behind enormous paywalls. Now it gets communicated through pop-science websites like Earth.com which definitely don’t care about accurate and thorough education, only clicks.

I'm not sure if I was clear either so just to re-iterate: the reduction of aerosols was not to combat climate change, it was to combat smog. And the actions taken in the US to reduce smog predate any climate policy.

being somewhere in a 1000+ page report isn't really "available". Its certainly never made it to the general conversation, again it begins to even out the conversation because right now in the world of the public its:

THE WORLD IS ENDING BECAUSE OF MAN MADE CLIMATE AND HERE ARE THE FIXES WE MUST TAKE. THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE FIXES AND THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED AND IF YOU ASK QUESTIONS YOU BELIEVE THE EARTH IS FLAT.

that doesn't leave any middle ground. you are either 100% in, or you are the enemy. a reasonable stance supported by the actual science of "Hey here are the things we need to fix, here are the actual outcomes, and we are still trying to work out some of the details" frames the conversation completely differently and sets up a realm where you don't have to be 100% "in" or "out".

giving the people the freedom to choose their response, instead of a heavy handed one size fits all climate policy from the government, would have drastically helped messaging. The case I will point to is PV. An idiot could have sold that to every redneck farmer, outdoorsy person, or someone with a remote home/property as an off the grid alternative. Instead Obama politicizes it, requires it, and those same people who should be client #1 instead feel resentful about the whole thing and are going to be less likely to buy in.

when it comes to public policies, messaging matters a TON.

 

[LouderVol]

Can you reference the Al Gore “no glaciers in 20 years” model? I’ve never heard of that. Admittedly, I’ve never watched his film. But I think I would have heard of it, and google came up empty.

You’ve misunderstood the RCP8.5 news. It’s not a prediction of warming. It’s an emissions scenario. Models use a range of emissions scenarios to project temperature etc. The retirement of RCP8.5 does not imply anything about model accuracy or climate sensitivity to CO2. It’s just saying, the worst case emissions scenario at the time (2011) is no longer a realistic emissions scenario. Because there has been progress in reducing emissions since then. Here’s a detailed explanation.

Also not sure what you’re on about with sea level rise. It has risen slightly faster than the early IPCC reports projected, confirmed by satellite measurements.

I mean if you want to claim Al Gore's stuff is not supported by any science, I am not going to argue with you. I just wish the collective "you" would have spoken out about it.

I think you are splitting hairs here. there is what RCP8.5 is in the scientific community, and then there is how RCP8.5 is used. multiple states/cities and forth have set policy based on that model. it has been held up as the ONE path we are on as the worst case scenario and it ignored the changes that were happening even at its conception.

"Based on our literature evaluation, 90% of the hazard assessments assume coastal sea levels based on geoid models, rather than using actual sea-level measurements"

"However, spaceborne DEMs can have vertical errors up to several metres, contain sensing or interpolation artefacts, or are outdated, thereby affecting the quality of coastal hazard assessments, especially in flat, subsiding coastal plains and densely populated river deltas10,12,13. Apart from considering vertical uncertainty of elevation data, using DEMs in coastal hazard assessments requires correctly combining coastal elevation with local sea-level height and the proper conversion to a common vertical reference frame2,3. Through a systematic review evaluating recent SLR impacts and coastal hazard assessment studies, we found that these crucial steps were often not considered or performed incorrectly. Rather than considering actual, local sea-level height, coastal sea level is most often assumed to equal (an often outdated) global geoid (or in some instances even ellipsoid), to which open-access global DEMs are typically referenced when provided."

Sea level much higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments - Nature

Meta-analyses on a global scale show that the measured coastal mean sea level is higher than assumed in most coastal hazard assessments.

www.nature.com

their models for sea level rise didn't match the local measurements. they based their model on satellite data, not local measurements. Instead of taking the common sense approach that the satellite data is off (which they admit in the above) and adjust the models; they instead just claim that the sea is rising more than predicted. my point is they don't know what the baseline actually was to say sea level has actually risen. and instead of adjusting their process or hypothesis based on more correct local data, they just change the results because the truth makes things look worse than they are.

 

[rikberry31]

Oh, I didn't know America was the only country with thermometers in the 1930s

Nobody really recorded actual temperatures systematically and accurately till the 1800's, the modern day climate warriors estimated the temperatures of the past to fit the global warming agenda and prop up the money machine. Even the actual data that is available at the time suggests that it was much hotter in the medieval period and accelerated the plague.
The only way the climate warriors can make that go away is with "reconstructing the data" aka fudging/ignoring the numbers they don't like.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Oh, I didn't know America was the only country with thermometers in the 1930s

Now, @BartW , that is not what he said.