More Climate BS...

#3,751
#3,751
marcusluvsvols said:
Right. About 200years of spotty data?
Even if it was 5x that. 1000 years of climate data from all around the world...something we wont have for another 700 or 800 years...its absolutely meaningless on a planet the very same scientists claim is 4 Billion years old. No mathematician, or honest scientist would tell you that it is reasonable to make predictions based on 200years of data in a 4 Billion year data set. None. Nobody. Its preposterous. Might as well just make your conclusions from nothing. From zero knowledge. 200years on a scale of 4 Billion is practically zero. In fact its a bunch of them...like 0.000005%. Thats how much data we would have IF we had atmosphere AND ocean data from everywhere on Earth for 200 years. Which we of course do not. We have spotty data from part of the planet taken on various different instruments.

Here's the math:View attachment 832761
Click to expand...
Lack of historical data does not nullify the chemistry behind greenhouse gasses.
 
#3,752
#3,752
OHvol40 said:
“Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperature reaching 1.1°C above 1850–1900 in 2011–2020.”

A headline statement from the report I linked previously.
Click to expand...

So we have no idea if 2024 was the hottest year ever. Just within the last 175 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77 and GroverCleveland
#3,756
#3,756
hog88 said:
So we have no idea if 2024 was the hottest year ever. Just within the last 175 years.
Click to expand...
Trying to disqualify the work of tens of thousands over decades because Genghis Khan wasn’t collecting global climate data doesn’t work. There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism.
 
#3,758
#3,758
OHvol40 said:
Trying to disqualify the work of tens of thousands over decades because Genghis Khan wasn’t collecting global climate data doesn’t work. There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism.
Click to expand...

You can't claim 2024 was the hottest year ever when the North Pole use to be covered in forest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31, marcusluvsvols, GroverCleveland and 1 other person
#3,759
#3,759
hog88 said:
You can't claim 2024 was the hottest year ever when the North Pole use to be covered in forest.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is claiming it’s the hottest ever, and if that’s what you’re trying to refute you’ve missed the point entirely. It’s really just about chemistry, that’s it. If you want to claim increasing greenhouse gasses in a finite container with consistent sun rays isn’t going to warm the earth, and/or hasn’t, that’s your prerogative… but refute the correct thing.
 
#3,760
#3,760
OHvol40 said:
I don’t think anyone is claiming it’s the hottest ever, and if that’s what you’re trying to refute you’ve missed the point entirely. It’s really just about chemistry, that’s it. If you want to claim increasing greenhouse gasses in a finite container with consistent sun rays isn’t going to warm the earth, and/or hasn’t, that’s your prerogative… but refute the correct thing.
Click to expand...

When the earth is 4 billion years old and we have had numerous ice ages and warming periods an article touting the "hottest year on record" when the records only go back 175 years is horse crude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YankeeVol, marcusluvsvols, MemphisVol77 and 2 others
#3,761
#3,761
EasternVol said:
My point is that the climate is indeed warming and has been for quite a while. I made that point because @OrangeTsar indicated that he doesn't think that it is.
Yes I think we all know about the sea level's fluctuations over time. And if I lived on a flat island I would still be worried. Very many who do are.
Click to expand...
They can move.
 
#3,763
#3,763
hog88 said:
When the earth is 4 billion years old and we have had numerous ice ages and warming periods an article touting the "hottest year on record" when the records only go back 175 years is horse crude.
Click to expand...
Because there aren’t comprehensive temp records going back to the Cretaceous does not negate the chemistry occurring.
 
#3,764
#3,764
OHvol40 said:
Because there aren’t comprehensive temp records going back to the Cretaceous does not negate the chemistry occurring.
Click to expand...

The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times trough millennia, I don’t see anyone questioning that. What’s highly questionable is claiming “the warmest year” when the ”chemistry“ proves the earth has been warmer.
 
#3,765
#3,765
hog88 said:
Which has turned out to be unreliable.
Click to expand...
Also can only vaguely tell us what the conditions were like in that 1 location...and nowhere else on planet Earth. All of this IF we have any accuracy whatsoever as to WHEN each layer of the core actually froze. Which is also suspect. The fact is we have no idea what conditions on this planet were like before recorded history, and spotty data even since the industrial revolution.
 
#3,766
#3,766
rikberry31 said:
Prove that humans are causing any of this. It's 🐂 💩. I don't care what is happening weather wise. It"s called weather. Show me a proponent of the climate change who isn't on the payroll.
Click to expand...
Source: me, a geologist, in the private sector, part of ownership of our small (30ish people) very successful and well-respected geoscience/engineering consulting firm. Nobody at my firm or any other geo firm I’ve worked for shares your views on this subject. Nor does anybody I’ve met in relevant fields in private sector, public, or academia.

I have degrees in physics and geology from UT. My dad’s been in UT’s physics department for decades, including as department head, and is UT’s 2026 Macebearer, among an endless list of awesome accomplishments. We don’t work directly on climate change but we understand basic physics.

I didn’t expect you to attempt to answer my question. Nobody on this forum has! But I read you’re a physicist too? Then you should be able to grasp this.

If global warming were due to an external forcing, such as an increase in solar output, the upper atmosphere would be warming. If global warming is due to greenhouse gases, the surface and lower atmosphere would warm, but the upper atmosphere would cool. Stratospheric cooling was predicted by Syukuro Manabe in the early ‘60s and has been verified by weather balloon and satellite data since the ‘80s. Manabe won a Nobel prize in physics for this. Stratospheric cooling is considered a human “fingerprint” in global warming.

Among other fingerprints, we can also directly measure the changes in incoming and outgoing radiation in the specific absorption bands of different atmospheric gases and thereby measure the change in flux due to greenhouse gases. And we can measure any change in radiation from the sun. It’s overwhelmingly obvious that current global warming is being caused by greenhouse gases from human emissions, and not by the sun.

What do we do about it? That's the real debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#3,767
#3,767
hog88 said:
The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times trough millennia, I don’t see anyone questioning that. What’s highly questionable is claiming “the warmest year” when the ”chemistry“ proves the earth has been warmer.
Click to expand...
It’s not “chemistry”, it’s just plain chemistry. Yes the earth has gone through cycles, every planet does. Usually the cycles aren’t abrupt and occur over tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. That is all fact… and has nothing to do with the current artificial increase in greenhouse gasses. It’s all measurable, the ppm of various particles in the atmosphere, the ocean temps and levels, glacial melt, change in bird migration patterns, extreme algae blooms, and on and on.

I understand it’s healthy to be skeptical, especially in the science field. The problem is that if you start with disqualifying standards (like accurate temperature recordings over the lifespan of the earth, like who would ever believe that’s achievable?) then you’ve already made up your mind.

Also, the line I keep hearing about the “grift” sounds an awful lot like calling out an actual budding American industry (something we are in short supply of right about now) for using practices that every other dirty American industry does (and then some). There is no conspiracy here, it’s just a lot of fossil fuel money being thrown into propaganda to create talking points against renewables.

In the end, we all know we have to reach totally renewable energy sources anyway, why not push toward that end? I’ll tell you why, because Americans are procrastinators. We do it in healthcare, in finance (personal and business), in politics, in just about every aspect of life. A “put it off till later” attitude. “Why do I have to worry about it, I’ll be dead?” I hear that crap all the time. What happened to planting the seed of a tree whose shade you’ll never sit under?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#3,769
#3,769
EasternVol said:
My point is that the climate is indeed warming and has been for quite a while. I made that point because @OrangeTsar indicated that he doesn't think that it is.
Yes I think we all know about the sea level's fluctuations over time. And if I lived on a flat island I would still be worried. Very many who do are.
Click to expand...
you/them should be worried regardless of the climate warming/changing. The people in New Orleans are idiots for living below sea level, continental glacier melt raising world wide sea level .1" isn't responsible for any of their idiocy.

Its not like they were at no risk until Ford released their V8 engines, and NOW things are screwed for a bunch of people who were perfectly safe before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
#3,771
#3,771
OHvol40 said:
I don’t think anyone is claiming it’s the hottest ever, and if that’s what you’re trying to refute you’ve missed the point entirely. It’s really just about chemistry, that’s it. If you want to claim increasing greenhouse gasses in a finite container with consistent sun rays isn’t going to warm the earth, and/or hasn’t, that’s your prerogative… but refute the correct thing.
Click to expand...
I am sorry, what?


"The Sun’s energy output changes over multiple time scales. The most regular pattern is an 11-year cycle of high and low activity caused by reversal of the Sun’s magnetic poles. During strong cycles, the Sun’s total brightness at solar maximum is about 0.1 percent higher than it is at solar minimum."

the peaks since 1950 have been the highest recorded. even after the drops the peaks have been higher.

and if you think that 0.1% is negligible realize that is on the scale of the sun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
#3,773
#3,773
OHvol40 said:
The myth that the Earth is currently cooling down—sometimes bolstered by the misconception that scientists warned of an impending ice age in the 1970s—is directly contradicted by overwhelming evidence. In reality, the planet is experiencing rapid, unprecedented global warming due to human activities. [1]

The Myth of a Cooling Planet
The claim that the Earth is cooling is usually rooted in a misunderstanding of past climate records or the conflation of short-term weather fluctuations with long-term planetary trends. [1, 2, 3]
  • The 1970s Consensus Myth: A pervasive myth suggests that climate scientists in the 1970s believed an ice age was imminent. While a few isolated media reports and a small number of scientific papers speculated about cooling—primarily due to temporary increases in sulfur-based aerosols reflecting sunlight—the vast majority of peer-reviewed literature in that era was already warning about global warming.
  • The "Cooling Cycle" Misconception: According to natural astronomical cycles (Milankovitch cycles), the Earth should currently be in the initial stages of a long-term, gradual cooling trend leading toward an ice age. However, this natural cycle has been completely overridden by greenhouse gas emissions, which are driving global temperatures upward at an unprecedented speed.
  • Weather vs. Climate: Localized cold spells or short-term multi-year drops in surface temperatures do not mean the planet is cooling. Global temperatures are highly variable and subject to "noisy" interactions between the atmosphere and oceans, but the definitive long-term trajectory is one of warming. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Scientific Reality
Rigorous, decades-long studies by organizations like NASA Science show that the average global surface temperature has risen significantly over the last century. This warming is primarily driven by the exponential increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels.

By the 1970s, scientists were becoming increasingly aware that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945, as well as the possibility of large scale warming due to emissions of greenhouse gases. In the scientific papers which considered climate trends of the 21st century, fewer than 10% were inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%.

science.nasa.gov

Nope, Earth Isn't Cooling - NASA Science

By Alan Buis,NASA Global Climate Change
science.nasa.gov science.nasa.gov

Click to expand...
Why is your data only from 1960 to now? Look back a little fruther, like to the 1930's.
 
#3,774
#3,774
OHvol40 said:
It’s not “chemistry”, it’s just plain chemistry. Yes the earth has gone through cycles, every planet does. Usually the cycles aren’t abrupt and occur over tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years. That is all fact… and has nothing to do with the current artificial increase in greenhouse gasses. It’s all measurable, the ppm of various particles in the atmosphere, the ocean temps and levels, glacial melt, change in bird migration patterns, extreme algae blooms, and on and on.

I understand it’s healthy to be skeptical, especially in the science field. The problem is that if you start with disqualifying standards (like accurate temperature recordings over the lifespan of the earth, like who would ever believe that’s achievable?) then you’ve already made up your mind.

Also, the line I keep hearing about the “grift” sounds an awful lot like calling out an actual budding American industry (something we are in short supply of right about now) for using practices that every other dirty American industry does (and then some). There is no conspiracy here, it’s just a lot of fossil fuel money being thrown into propaganda to create talking points against renewables.

In the end, we all know we have to reach totally renewable energy sources anyway, why not push toward that end? I’ll tell you why, because Americans are procrastinators. We do it in healthcare, in finance (personal and business), in politics, in just about every aspect of life. A “put it off till later” attitude. “Why do I have to worry about it, I’ll be dead?” I hear that crap all the time. What happened to planting the seed of a tree whose shade you’ll never sit under?
Click to expand...

I'm not a denier, I believe the earth could and probably is warming some. Where we differ is that I think mans contribution is minimal and instead of ruing economies trying to fight a losing battle against climate we should be investing in how the human race is going to live and thrive in a warmer (or colder) climate.
 
#3,775
#3,775
OHvol40 said:
Lack of historical data does not nullify the chemistry behind greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...
No one doubts the chemistry. The doubt is in the accuracy of the models used to predict the degree of warming. Models that so far have proven to be wildly inaccurate.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if you pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere that the earth would warm significantly. I just don’t think that the amounts currently added have been sufficient to move the needle enough to be discernible above normal statistical noise and naturally occurring variations in solar intensity and the earth‘s predictable orbital variance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rikberry31
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top