Climate Change Denial

[Norbert]

CO2 is a reaction, not a cause of temperature change. That is where you global warming zealots get it wrong.

It can be both, and it is both since burning fossil fuel is disrupting the balance of CO2.

Rising temperature causes (additional) release of CO2, and to some degree it becomes a vicious circle.

So either of those can come first. In ancient history, often temperature came first since there was no fossil fuel technology that would produce excess CO2.

 

[DrLOAC]

Clouds can more than obscure that 1.5W/M^2.

Then it should be easy for you to show increasing cloud cover has negated the extra radiative forcing from the excess CO2 in the atmosphere and show the equivalent loss of zetajoules of energy that balance out the increasing OHC, warming land, melting glaciers and warming lower troposphere.

Link us up brother

 

[DrLOAC]

It can be both, and it is both since burning fossile fuel is disrupting the balance of CO2.

Rising temperature causes (additional) release of CO2, and to some degree it becomes a vicious circle.

So either of those can come first. In ancient history, usually temperature came first since there was no fossile fuel technology that would produce excess CO2.

Exactly. If he actually understood why the climate was sometimes warmer in the past he’d understand the fact that CO2 is a leading indicator now instead of a lagging indicator show this is not another natural increase in global temperature.

 

[eevee-fan]

Exactly. If he actually understood why the climate was sometimes warmer in the past he’d understand the fact that CO2 is a leading indicator now instead of a lagging indicator show this is not another natural increase in global temperature.

I think either I or someone else had posted a video talking about how we're suppose to be in a period of cooling due to the sun being in a lull cycle. How is it that the earth continue to warm?!? Correct, must be CO2, methane or something else.

 

[MitchP85D]

Moderator Note: We all know this thread is a dumpster fire. As a moderator I don't generally care to have to sift through it on a regular basis, so I see a number of things have slipped through the cracks - ad hominem attacks and injection of politics for starters. I'm not going to clean much up, but I'll throw this warning out. Future ad hominem attacks will result in account actions for the offenders, especially if they've got a history of doing so already.

Discuss the content, not the contributor, etc..

Thanks.

Acknowledged.

 

[MitchP85D]

Spencer gave a very well thought out PowerPoint Presentation in Pasadena, CA in February 2020. He covers everything brought up here by some of you concerning the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and the Global Energy Imbalance. He brought up an extremely important point. And that point is that NASA's most sensitive satellite instruments are not accurate enough to measure the global energy flow attributed to humans. All of the warming could be natural, and we would not even know it. Alarmists like to point out that the global warming of the oceans is equivalent to an atomic bomb per second. But guess what? The sun puts the equivalent of 300 atomic bombs into the ocean every second. One of you asked where does the energy come from? Well, you start there.

The PowerPoint Presentation is very easy to read through and highlights the major points. Only takes a few minutes to look through it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Pasadena-Feb-2020-pdf-slideshow.pdf

My Presentation to the Pacific Pension & Investment Institute « Roy Spencer, PhD

 

[eevee-fan]

Spencer gave a very well thought out PowerPoint Presentation in Pasadena, CA in February 2020. He covers everything brought up here by some of you concerning the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and the Global Energy Imbalance. He brought up an extremely important point. And that point is that NASA's most sensitive satellite instruments are not accurate enough to measure the global energy flow attributed to humans. All of the warming could be natural, and we would not even know it. Alarmists like to point out that the global warming of the oceans is equivalent to an atomic bomb per second. But guess what? The sun puts the equivalent of 300 atomic bombs into the ocean every second. One of you asked where does the energy come from? Well, you start there.

The PowerPoint Presentation is very easy to read through and highlights the major points. Only takes a few minutes to look through it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Pasadena-Feb-2020-pdf-slideshow.pdf

My Presentation to the Pacific Pension & Investment Institute « Roy Spencer, PhD

If it's explained already and you have studied it, how come you are unable to explain it?!?

 

[nwdiver]

All of the warming could be natural, and we would not even know it.

So.... if you were expecting to get a ~$3k paycheck this week... and you received ~$3k.... asking why you weren't paid and looking into the bank error searching for some unknown source of the $3k.... that.... that's a rational response to your mind? Really?

It's not like we noticed warming and started searching for a scapegoat. The idea that rising CO2 levels cause warming was predicted based on physics as far back as ~150 years ago. If something you were expecting to happen.... happens.... which do you think is more likely? That it happened for the reason you were expecting it to happen or for some independent and unknown reason?

 

[DrLOAC]

Spencer gave a very well thought out PowerPoint Presentation in Pasadena, CA in February 2020. He covers everything brought up here by some of you concerning the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and the Global Energy Imbalance. He brought up an extremely important point. And that point is that NASA's most sensitive satellite instruments are not accurate enough to measure the global energy flow attributed to humans. All of the warming could be natural, and we would not even know it. Alarmists like to point out that the global warming of the oceans is equivalent to an atomic bomb per second. But guess what? The sun puts the equivalent of 300 atomic bombs into the ocean every second. One of you asked where does the energy come from? Well, you start there.

The PowerPoint Presentation is very easy to read through and highlights the major points. Only takes a few minutes to look through it.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Pasadena-Feb-2020-pdf-slideshow.pdf

My Presentation to the Pacific Pension & Investment Institute « Roy Spencer, PhD

The delta is 3-4 A-bombs a second. Or if you like 75% the impact energy of the Chixulub asteroid impact from 65M years ago (albeit spread out over the last 50 years or so). Your argument is that amount of energy increase has no effect?

I’m going to blow your mind here in a second. If NASA’s most sensitive satellite instruments aren’t sensitive enough to measure the delta in heat (and technically this is true, last I saw the uncertainty in the measurements meant at one end of the curve it was possible to be roughly in energy balance but the median showed warming), then what is Dr Spencer’s satellite record using to measure atmospheric temperatures? Why is it accurate enough for you? Why don’t you provide some links?

Of course ground instruments are more than accurate enough to confirm what the satellites suggest. The oceans, land and lower atmosphere are warming. I’ve already linked to a paper in this thread experimentally measuring the increase in heat retention due to CO2 and provided links showing the ever increasing OHC. Your response appears to be there’s a global conspiracy of the 100’s of climate scientist around the world to lie about global warming except for the 3-4 who heroically make money posting to right wing media.

 

[MitchP85D]

If it's explained already and you have studied it, how come you are unable to explain it?!?

Because I was only an operational weather forecaster - not an atmospheric research scientist like Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Curry, Dyson, Happer, Gray. and others.

 

[MitchP85D]

So.... if you were expecting to get a ~$3k paycheck this week... and you received ~$3k.... asking why you weren't paid and looking into the bank error searching for some unknown source of the $3k.... that.... that's a rational response to your mind? Really?

It's not like we noticed warming and started searching for a scapegoat. The idea that rising CO2 levels cause warming was predicted based on physics as far back as ~150 years ago. If something you were expecting to happen.... happens.... which do you think is more likely? That it happened for the reason you were expecting it to happen or for some independent and unknown reason?

Your response is totally out to lunch. A 3K deposit is detectable. 0.8 W/M^2 isn't.

 

[MitchP85D]

The delta is 3-4 A-bombs a second. Or if you like 75% the impact energy of the Chixulub asteroid impact from 65M years ago (albeit spread out over the last 50 years or so). Your argument is that amount of energy increase has no effect?

I’m going to blow your mind here in a second. If NASA’s most sensitive satellite instruments aren’t sensitive enough to measure the delta in heat (and technically this is true, last I saw the uncertainty in the measurements meant at one end of the curve it was possible to be roughly in energy balance but the median showed warming), then what is Dr Spencer’s satellite record using to measure atmospheric temperatures? Why is it accurate enough for you? Why don’t you provide some links?

Of course ground instruments are more than accurate enough to confirm what the satellites suggest. The oceans, land and lower atmosphere are warming. I’ve already linked to a paper in this thread experimentally measuring the increase in heat retention due to CO2 and provided links showing the ever increasing OHC. Your response appears to be there’s a global conspiracy of the 100’s of climate scientist around the world to lie about global warming except for the 3-4 who heroically make money posting to right wing media.

Did any of you even bother to just at least scan through the PowerPoint presentation? It is quick and easy - not like reading a technical research paper. Retreating Alaska glaciers reveals a Medieval Forest. Does that even phase any of you? The earth has warmed without, and I repeat WITHOUT CO2 forcing. Maybe that doesn't register with any of you. Climate can change without any forcing. It is a chaotic system.

 

[MitchP85D]

Did any of you even bother to just at least scan through the PowerPoint presentation? It is quick and easy - not like reading a technical research paper. Retreating Alaska glaciers reveals a Medieval Forest. Does that even phase any of you? The earth has warmed without, and I repeat WITHOUT CO2 forcing. Maybe that doesn't register with any of you. Climate can change without any forcing. It is a chaotic system.

By the way, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) uses the same satellites UAH does.

Remote Sensing Systems

RSS has noticed the same thing UAH has. Scroll down to the temperature graphs. Climate models exaggerate global warming.

 

[Norbert]

Did any of you even bother to just at least scan through the PowerPoint presentation? It is quick and easy - not like reading a technical research paper. Retreating Alaska glaciers reveals a Medieval Forest. Does that even phase any of you? The earth has warmed without, and I repeat WITHOUT CO2 forcing. Maybe that doesn't register with any of you. Climate can change without any forcing. It is a chaotic system.

I'm not sure that makes any sense at all. It's like saying: We will die anyway, so we don't care about things that might kill us tomorrow.

Sure, a lot of things might cause our death, but if we see cause and effect, we remove the cause. That's just the reasonable thing to do.
And here we see cause and effect: additional CO2 that has an additional warming effect. And at this point in time, we don't want the climate to change. We don't want it to be more chaotic than it already is. Who knows, maybe in a few thousand years an ice age will be coming, and then we might be happy if we have some oil left to burn. But that's not the case right now.

 

[nwdiver]

Your response is totally out to lunch. A 3K deposit is detectable. 0.8 W/M^2 isn't.

LOL.... the effect... the ~2E22J/yr certainly is... we detected it.... in the ocean. 2E22J/yr is A LOT of energy... kinda hard to miss.

 

[DrLOAC]

Did any of you even bother to just at least scan through the PowerPoint presentation? It is quick and easy - not like reading a technical research paper. Retreating Alaska glaciers reveals a Medieval Forest. Does that even phase any of you? The earth has warmed without, and I repeat WITHOUT CO2 forcing. Maybe that doesn't register with any of you. Climate can change without any forcing. It is a chaotic system.

I did. It’s a bunch of opinion an innuendo. Although I see you are quoting it verbatim


Does it even phase you that previous warming trends had different causes than they do now? Yes the Earth has warmed in the past before CO2 increased, but NOW it’s warming because of CO2. See the difference?

 

[eevee-fan]

That is why when I asked him to refute, 'Mitch' comes back with an excuse. It's exactly like taking the 5th.

This is what happens when scientists reviewed and refuted his 'global cooling' claim. LOL

Your hero here at around the 6:00 mark.

... almost like this. LOL

 

[MitchP85D]

LOL.... the effect... the ~2E22J/yr certainly is... we detected it.... in the ocean. 2E22J/yr is A LOT of energy... kinda hard to miss.

It is a big ocean. The sun pours the equivalent of 300 atomic bombs into the ocean every second. That is where you get your big numbers from.

 

[nwdiver]

It is a big ocean. The sun pours the equivalent of 300 atomic bombs into the ocean every second. That is where you get your big numbers from.

Yep... from the radiative forcing of CO2. You think it’s a coincidence that ~2E22J/yr was predicted by physics and ~2E22EJ/yr is what we’re measuring? Really?

 

[MitchP85D]

Yep... from the radiative forcing of CO2. You think it’s a coincidence that ~2E22J/yr was predicted by physics and ~2E22EJ/yr is what we’re measuring? Really?

It is complete delusional nonsense to believe the almighty CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is responsible for the heat energy in the ocean. The ocean warms because of the sun. After it warms, it releases heat into the atmosphere before it eventually goes out into space. When the ocean releases heat, the ocean cools while the atmosphere warms. The atmosphere eventually follows the oceans' cooling process. But this is an extremely complex and chaotic process. As Dr. Richard Lindzen explains, the earth is a planet that is covered by about 70% water. The earth receives energy from the sun with a great imbalance between the polar regions and the tropical region. Combine this with a rotating spherical platform interacting with the remaining 30% land surface, there will be a multitude of ocean and atmospheric currents that are constantly equalizing the energy imbalance between the poles and the tropics, but it never equalizes. This chaotic system results in multi-decadal surges of atmospheric warming and cooling. Attributing all of the current atmospheric warming to humans requires a devout religious belief.