Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[mspohr]

Greta Thunberg: ‘They see us as a threat because we’re having an impact’

Greta Thunberg: ‘They see us as a threat because we’re having an impact’

Greta Thunberg. This time last year she was unimaginable. Then, pretty much from nowhere, there she was: small and slight, a girl just turned 16, the way-too-young odd person out on a panel of adults sitting in front of the world’s economic powers at Davos last January. Unshowy and serious, careful, firm, she said it. Our house is on fire.

The ancient Greeks had a word for this: parrhesiastes. It means a person who speaks truth to power: you should not be behaving in this way. Don’t. More specifically it suggests someone in whom directness of expression and access to truth coincide; and it means someone of very little power who’s risking everything – because they can’t not, there’s no option – to speak ethical truth to powers so entrenched that they’re close to tyrannical, because telling this truth is about moral law. “Some people, some companies, some decision-makers in particular know exactly what priceless values they have been sacrificing to continue to make unimaginable amounts of money, and I think many of you here today,” she said to the World Economic Forum conference, “belong to that group of people.”

 

[nwdiver]

CO2 lags temperature change in the long term history of the earths climate. It does not cause them. But so many in the CAGW religion believe CO2 is the control knob for Earths global temperature. They just cling to that dogma in the face of real evidence to the contrary.

Your friend says you're an idiot...

As any idiot can see (other than you of course) CO2 leads temperature change by an average of 700-800 years, not the other way around. Chew on that for awhile, Einstein.

Usually some small amount of warming causes CO2 levels to increase which amplifies the warming. The magnitude if the ice ages cannot be explained by small orbital cycles. If CO2 isn't the cause..... what is???? For the the 31st time.... what's the alternative hypothesis?????

 

[jrad6515]

Your friend says you're an idiot...



Usually some small amount of warming causes CO2 levels to increase which amplifies the warming. The magnitude if the ice ages cannot be explained by small orbital cycles. If CO2 isn't the cause..... what is???? For the the 31st time.... what's the alternative hypothesis?????

Okay I made a typo. Clearly CO2 lags temp change by several hundred years, not the other way around. Your 'CO2 amplification' theory is laughably idiotoic and has no empirical proof behind it, not that lack of proof ever bothers you in the first place. And just to clarify: you remain the idiot, not Swampgator.

 

[nwdiver]

Okay I made a typo. Clearly CO2 lags temp change by several hundred years, not the other way around. Your 'CO2 amplification' theory is laughably idiotoic and has no empirical proof behind it, not that lack of proof ever bothers you in the first place. And just to clarify: you remain the idiot, not Swampgator.

LOL... sure.... you made a typo of lags to leads because the 'eads' key is so close to the 'ags' key AND it was in response to my point that a small change in temperature due to an orbital shift causes CO2 levels to rise LOL. You're truly pathetic.

The only coherent explanation is that orbital shifts cause a rise in CO2 levels which triggers a feedback effect. If it's not CO2 that's forcing this swing... what is it?

For the 32nd time.... CO2 isn't always the initiator of a change in temperature but with the ice ages it was the dominant forcing agent. If it wasn't CO2..... what was it???? What's causing the current warming????

Physics says it's CO2. Math agrees. Some idiots like you disagree with the math and physics because it offends their worldview. Ok..... then WHAT. IS. THE. CAUSE??????


Seriously; If you're not just a pathetic troll, what's the alternative?

CO2 fits almost perfectly. The forcing of an additional ~120ppm is measured at ~1.5w/m^2. Let's run the numbers. 1.5w = 5400J and the Earth is 510.1T m^2.

View attachment 429841

So the measured ~1.5w/m^2 forcing of CO2 should now be adding ~2.4E22J/yr. Let's do a science and test this...


View attachment 429842

Pretty good match. Especially considering that there are parts of the ocean Argo isn't yet measuring. Ok detective. We've got a body with a bullet hole in it. And a gun. The coroner found the bullet that matches the gun. But you don't think this person died from a gunshot wound. So..... what else could it be other than CO2?

 

[WVhybrid]

If this is that simple as you state, then why to current climate models always run hot and overestimate the temperature rise from co2? I mean, it's simple physics, right?

Which models run hotter? The Arrhenius modeling of 1898? Hanson of 1988? Only if you cherry pick the data. All of the models show the poles heating faster than the mid and lower latitudes, which is exactly what is happening. Most of the published modeling (for example, the summaries of the IPCC reports) show less heating and less sea level rise that is being measured. And then there is the work by J. Francis, who has pioneered the understanding of the jet stream weakening and instability like we are seeing this week in eastern North America.

 

[SageBrush]

Swampy said
"If this is that simple as you state, then why to current climate models always run hot and overestimate the temperature rise from co2? ?"

The temperature rise where ?

The metric of merit is global heat accumulation.

 

[jrad6515]

LOL... sure.... you made a typo of lags to leads because the 'eads' key is so close to the 'ags' key AND it was in response to my point that a small change in temperature due to an orbital shift causes CO2 levels to rise LOL. You're truly pathetic.



For the 32nd time.... CO2 isn't always the initiator of a change in temperature but with the ice ages it was the dominant forcing agent. If it wasn't CO2..... what was it???? What's causing the current warming????

Physics says it's CO2. Math agrees. Some idiots like you disagree with the math and physics because it offends their worldview. Ok..... then WHAT. IS. THE. CAUSE??????


Seriously; If you're not just a pathetic troll, what's the alternative?

CO2 fits almost perfectly. The forcing of an additional ~120ppm is measured at ~1.5w/m^2. Let's run the numbers. 1.5w = 5400J and the Earth is 510.1T m^2.

View attachment 429841

So the measured ~1.5w/m^2 forcing of CO2 should now be adding ~2.4E22J/yr. Let's do a science and test this...


View attachment 429842

Pretty good match. Especially considering that there are parts of the ocean Argo isn't yet measuring. Ok detective. We've got a body with a bullet hole in it. And a gun. The coroner found the bullet that matches the gun. But you don't think this person died from a gunshot wound. So..... what else could it be other than CO2?

You truly are a freaking idiot. The one thing that you can completely rule out as driving climate from the Vostok ice record is CO2. It obviously lags temperature change by 700 or 800 years. But of course you thought that the earth didn’t exist before the Vostok ice record anyway, moron.

 

[nwdiver]

You truly are a freaking idiot. The one thing that you can completely rule out as driving climate from the Vostok ice record is CO2. It obviously lags temperature change by 700 or 800 years. But of course you thought that the earth didn’t exist before the Vostok ice record anyway, moron.

Ok.... if it's not CO2... what is it?

LOL; Temperature increases in the piston of a gas or diesel car before the gas or diesel ignites.... does that mean we can we also rule out gasoline or diesel as the source of energy in a car?

Which part of 'feedback' confuses you? Slight warming from orbital shift => Warmer Oceans => More CO2 => Warmer Oceans => More CO2. Without the 'More CO2' you would get a ~1C increase instead of a 10C increase.

For the ~33rd time.... if CO2 isn't the primary driver..... what is????? Tiny orbital wobbles cannot cause a 10C increase without the forcing effect of CO2 increasing >50%.

 

[nwdiver]

...... Optimism?

 

[ReddyLeaf]

...... Optimism?

View attachment 433084

I’m not sure whether to “love” or “hate “ that comment. I think:

 

[SR22pilot]

An interesting climate paper:

1. Femke J. M. M. Nijsse, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, Mark S. Williamson. Decadal global temperature variability increases strongly with climate sensitivity. Nature Climate Change, 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0527-4

 

[SageBrush]

The one thing that you can completely rule out as driving climate from the Vostok ice record is CO2.

May Darwin bless you. Soon.

In the meantime, you are ignored

 

[SageBrush]

These bozos hanging on to the "CO2 lags warming" canard have identified the trigger but ignore the bullet.

 

[dhrivnak]

View attachment 431163
Come on, just because skeptical science says it never happened? JRP3, how old are you? I am 52. I REMEMBER all of the stories and articles on this. I wrote a paper for my school on this. There are quotes for scientists stating this. We did not have google back then, so there was no way for the layperson to search for peer reviewed literature, but this WAS the prevailing zeitgeist right up until the late 1970s. View attachment 431162 View attachment 431161

Yes some were worried about this. It turns out SO2 the stuff of acid rain reflects sunlight and has a cooling effect. We GREATLY reduced SO2 emissions and the warming of CO2 came roaring back. Again there were VERY few scientists behind the cooling as most thought even back then we should be warming.

 

[dhrivnak]

Sure I would like your walk through. Really would. And as always I do appreciate your civil tone. My algorithms have trained me to respond favorably to that

Have you consider the criticisms of the Mann paper? His emails discussing how they could "hide the decline"?
That was really not so much about data adjustment, but rather about cherry picking proxies that fit his predetermined narrative, and then "normalizing" them against the modern temp records (adjusted). Even after his team had been warned that bristelcone pines were a poor proxy for temperature as they were more sensitive to fertilization and water period than temperatures for growth. If you would like to show me how that works, we could start there. As a former data scientist would you agree that the quality of the original data is paramount? No amount of statistical adjustment, smoothing, or normalizing can make up for poor quality data, right?

And other scientists who tested Mann’s theories ended up supporting this thesis. Here is a good summary of you want the background

 

[mspohr]

There's A Cancer On The U.S. Economy: It's Climate Change Denial

 

[SageBrush]

I'm not much of a 'Green New Deal' advocate but it is painfully obvious that fossil fuels are an economic nightmare for many, many reasons.

 

[ggies07]

Another great speech by Greta. I love that she speaks from the data, the science.

 

[S'toon]

Twelve years to save Earth? Make that 18 months...

 

[Swampgator]

Which models run hotter? The Arrhenius modeling of 1898? Hanson of 1988? Only if you cherry pick the data. All of the models show the poles heating faster than the mid and lower latitudes, which is exactly what is happening. Most of the published modeling (for example, the summaries of the IPCC reports) show less heating and less sea level rise that is being measured. And then there is the work by J. Francis, who has pioneered the understanding of the jet stream weakening and instability like we are seeing this week in eastern North America.

The CMIP5 climate models on which the IPCC bases it's projected climate change. I've showed how they run much hotter than observations. But you can pick and choose some others if you like. Show me one climate model whose output has matched observations. I'll wait....