More Climate BS...

All we can do is try to develop other energy technologies. Even if we're heating up the planet with our CO-2 emissions, we're not going back to the horse and buggy. We're going to have to live with it. Raising taxes on fossil fuels won't have any effect on our climate. All it will do is take more money from us

Climate change folks have yet to give us a solution
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
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.
It's a freaking hoax. Why do the climate change advocates only look at data from 1960 when there is realizable data since the 1800's? Explain the 1930's and the heat wave then which was much higher than now. It was the cause of the Dust Bowl, and contour plowing wouldn't have made a difference.
H20 has a far greater influence on temperature than CO2 and it is much more abundant when the temperature is high. That is why it is drier in the cold months and more humid in the hot ones.
Without the bogus Hockey Stick Graph, find me a correlation between higher CO2 levels and higher temperature. The earth is actually better of with more CO2, it is greener now that it has been decades.
I understand that it is very difficult to speak out against the machine, and a lot of people are intimidated into buying the lie, but man caused climate change is 🐂 💩 .
 
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.

most of the climate scientists seem to do just that.

how else do they make the claim that there has been change, yet alone what is normal? they are "betting" on some sort temperature recordings over the lifespan of the earth to make their judgements.

but then when the fallacy of that assumption is pointed out, by you a believer, it never gets looked into and examined as part of the science.
 
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?
Tell me about Climate Gate. I haven't heard any of y'all explain that one.
 
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.
lol so the earth doesn’t receive consistent sun rays? Because that’s what I said. Keep explaining, if ya want.
 
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.
...or that we humans are causing the earth to warm now when we know for a fact that the earth has warmed and cooled numerous times through the millennia without us even being in existence.

The scientists also said that Pluto was a planet.
 
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.
If we foster renewables with proper funding, R&D and infrastructure, why would it ruin economies?
 
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.
Oh plenty of people doubt the chemistry.
 
If we foster renewables with proper funding, R&D and infrastructure, why would it ruin economies?

If the climate change crowd was serious about the climate and truly believed fossil fuel emissions were causing the earth to warm they would be all on board with nuclear and hydroelectric generation. They would also be in full support of changing what we use in internal combustion engines to natural gas which would require pipelines and update distribution networks. But where that group trips over their own dork everytime is they are against nuclear, building more hydro electric dams and natural gas pipelines. Kinda hard to take them seriously when they oppose almost everything that is a viable and reliable alternative to oil/gas/coal.
 
It's a freaking hoax. Why do the climate change advocates only look at data from 1960 when there is realizable data since the 1800's? Explain the 1930's and the heat wave then which was much higher than now. It was the cause of the Dust Bowl, and contour plowing wouldn't have made a difference.
H20 has a far greater influence on temperature than CO2 and it is much more abundant when the temperature is high. That is why it is drier in the cold months and more humid in the hot ones.
Without the bogus Hockey Stick Graph, find me a correlation between higher CO2 levels and higher temperature. The earth is actually better of with more CO2, it is greener now that it has been decades.
I understand that it is very difficult to speak out against the machine, and a lot of people are intimidated into buying the lie, but man caused climate change is 🐂 💩 .
Where did you obtain your degree?
 
My post literally said, "I am not certain of anything" in regards to why it is changing"
If someone can show me how man is creating the climate change, then I'll listen. The climate changes all the time but it isn't because of man. If that can't be shown then the trillions of dollars spent on it are pure graft.
It's a freaking hoax, the biggest one in history.
 
That was for @rikberry31 since he rejects facts he doesn't like.

Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening​

ditor—The apocalyptic tone that Smith adopted in relation to the environment bears little relation to reality.1 In his editorial Smith asserts, “virtually all scientists agree that global warming is happening.” Global warming is now joining the list of “what everyone knows.”

Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. “The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.”2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to “prove” that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers’ summary (which became the “take home message” for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, “In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”4

Policymaking should be guided by proved fact, not speculation. Most members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believe that current climate models do not accurately portray the atmosphere-ocean system. Measurements made by means of satellites show no global warming but a cooling of 0.13°C between 1979 and 1994.5 Furthermore, since the theory of global warming assumes maximum warming at the poles, why have average temperatures in the Arctic dropped by 0.88°C over the past 50 years?5

References​

  • 1.Smith R. Climate change: decision time in Kyoto. BMJ. 1997;315:1326. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1326. . (22 November.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Michaels P. Conspiracy, consensus or correlation? What scientists think about the ‘popular vision’ of global warming. World Climate Review. 1993;1:11. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.McMichael AJ, Haines A. Global climate change: the potential effects on health. BMJ. 1997;315:805–809. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7111.805. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Seitz F. Major deception on global warning. Wall Street Journal 1996 June 12;section A:16(col 3).
  • 5.Balling RC. Global warming: messy models, decent data and pointless policy. In: Bailey R, editor. The true state of the planet. New York: Free Press; 1995. pp. 83–107. [Google Scholar]
us_flag.svg

An official website of the United States government
 
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.
I'll go one further, pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere and only plants and cockroaches will be around.

I'd take it more seriously if the main solutions were not stop driving my vehicle and the United States has to take it on the chin for the rest of the world (outside of Europe. Give credit to the Germans, they put their money where their mouth is and are paying the price for it), but nope! I'll be a bit more prone to think the climate gang believes what they're spewing when they want to build more nukes asap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
If we foster renewables with proper funding, R&D and infrastructure, why would it ruin economies?
Aren't the renewables a much more expensive energy source than what we have now? We're talking energy density. What is the cost to deliver wind or solar powered energy at the equivalent density of a gallon of gasoline? All in. Without government subsidies, how many wind and solar farms would be built?

Our power is cheap because we get a significant portion of it from hydrocarbons and nukes.
 
lol so the earth doesn’t receive consistent sun rays? Because that’s what I said. Keep explaining, if ya want.
depending on what you mean by "consistent sun rays", yes the earth does NOT receive the same amount of energy from the sun day to day, month to month, year to year, and so forth. most of the difference comes from sunspots, but there are also solar cycles.

when you apply those tiny differences over areas like the earth (sun facing side) it adds up.

but don't worry the article mentions that climate change isn't tied to those changes. I was pointing out an error in your assumption. its a very well established fact that there are differences in what the earth receives from the sun.

Just wanted to make sure you weren't turning into another science denier and knew all of the SETTLED sciences before you went making incorrect claims to assert a point that isn't supported by the facts.
 
I'll go one further, pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere and only plants and cockroaches will be around.

I'd take it more seriously if the main solutions were not stop driving my vehicle and the United States has to take it on the chin for the rest of the world (outside of Europe. Give credit to the Germans, they put their money where their mouth is and are paying the price for it), but nope! I'll be a bit more prone to think the climate gang believes what they're spewing when they want to build more nukes asap.
And when Obama and the lib elite stop purchasing oceanfront mansions that are just a few inches above current sea level
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
It's a freaking hoax. Why do the climate change advocates only look at data from 1960 when there is realizable data since the 1800's? Explain the 1930's and the heat wave then which was much higher than now. It was the cause of the Dust Bowl, and contour plowing wouldn't have made a difference.
H20 has a far greater influence on temperature than CO2 and it is much more abundant when the temperature is high. That is why it is drier in the cold months and more humid in the hot ones.
Without the bogus Hockey Stick Graph, find me a correlation between higher CO2 levels and higher temperature. The earth is actually better of with more CO2, it is greener now that it has been decades.
I understand that it is very difficult to speak out against the machine, and a lot of people are intimidated into buying the lie, but man caused climate change is 🐂 💩 .
Rik, you're littering this place with a gish gallop of climate denier talking points from 15+ years ago. I suspect that if I engage you on a single point, you'll ignore the lesson again, and go on posting more nonsense. How about, I'll address two topics of your choosing, if you will discuss the subject of my previous posts:

If you think global warming is being caused by "natural cycles" in the energy we receive from the sun, why is the upper atmosphere cooling?

Anybody?
 

Advertisement



Back
Top