More Climate BS...

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[hog88]

Well this doesn't fit the man-made global warming consensus.

We could be 16 years into a methane-fueled 'termination' event significant enough to end an ice age

But in late 2006, something "very, very odd" happened, he said. Methane started rising again, but there was no dramatic shift in human activity to blame — and researchers were left scratching their heads. Then, in 2013, Nisbet and his colleagues realized this rise was accelerating. By 2020, methane was increasing at the fastest rate on record, he said.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I agree completely although I think it's pretty obvious empirically that we are living in a time when the temperature happens to be increasing and ice is melting. I just don't buy that it's necessarily anything other than the natural ebb and flow.

Exactly. Exactly this.

 

[BartW]

Yessir. I understand consensus is general agreement. I am trying to understand why consensus is even mentioned. Al Gore did it when he promoted his movie.

When a scientific fact is provable and predictable does it need consensus? You mentioned the flat earthers....does anyone care whether there is consensus the earth is a sphere? Of course not. Consensus is ridiculous for the shape of the earth. Imagine all the astronomers gathering at a professional conference agreeing to affirm their agreement the earth is spherical.

Again I agree, a measurement of consensus is not for the scientists that are being surveyed. And are you suggesting the IPCC is just a party where there’s a “Is climate change real” yes/no vote?

OTOH, no amount of consensus in flat earth circles changes the facts. It doesn't matter how many people agree to those who know the observable truth.

If consensus isn't for the scientific community, that means it is for us. What does it matter whether we agree with something scientific?

I mean I personally don’t care if y’all individually want to believe in a flat earth. But it becomes a problem when half of congress either believes in flat earth or goes along with the wild conspiracy theories because it’s politically convenient.

Of course, there are other scientists and experts who disagree with the consensus. So perhaps consensus is about agreeing with a particular side when the science isn't actually settled.

In the 20th century the scientific community had less agreement about climate change. What’s telling is how a consensus grows over time. And how the consensus grows even stronger when you look at the subsets of scientists that have more relevant expertise or are more frequently published in the field.

The climate contrarians that the denialist blogosphere like to trot out generally fall into one or more categories of non-experts, professor emeritus of adjacent fields who hasn’t published in decades, or are literally funded by far right wing and fossil fuel interests. Many are conveniently also “experts” on tobacco carcinogenicity, acid rain, etc. etc. (and guess what, it turns out every environmental, health and safety issue is non-issue! How convenient!). I know, I know, don’t attack the source; but it’s absolutely worth pointing out. I’m happy to go through the actual science when it’s a good faith discussion with a reasonable person and not just a gish gallop of tired denialist memes.

 

[Tman44]

Judith Curry used to proliferate the climate hoax until she looked at the actual facts and realized this garbage is based on an anti-capitalist agenda. She does a great job of explaining why people sell their souls for a false narrative. Hopefully more will come out and expose the whole climate change industry as fraud. This is a great read.

This scientist used to spread climate change alarmism. Now she's trying to debunk it.

 

[BartW]

pretty much anyone with a brain realizes that the earth is warming, and there's a good chance humans are a contributing factor.

Yeah, well, there are people in this thread still making the argument that the earth is not warming at all so…

The earth is 25% greener than it was in the 1980's, per NASA.

Ah yes, the Brawndo argument. CO2, it’s what plants crave! I’ve seen this one repeated here several times recently. While there’s a nugget of truth to this, the thought process is ridiculously oversimplified. For example, there are more ingredients to photosynthesis than CO2. Plants also need water, which is not keeping up with the increase CO2. Plants also need good soil to grow, and as climates shift toward the poles we lose arable land. There are a number of other issues but these should be easy enough to think through. Like I said there’s a nugget of truth though. There was greening in the latter part of the 20th century. But that trend has already begun to reverse:

Global water use efficiency saturation due to increased vapor pressure deficit

Inhibitive Effects of Recent Exceeding Air Temperature Optima of Vegetation Productivity and Increasing Water Limitation on Photosynthesis Reversed Global Greening

Also, arsenic and co2 is a terrible comparison. co2 is not poisonous... lack of oxygen is. When you generate co2 and no oxygen, then the air gets toxic (running a car in a garage). More carbon in the atmosphere means more plants, means more oxygen released into the air.

The comparison was to show why “CO2 only constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere, therefore couldn’t possibly have any impact on anything!” is another flawed thought process.

Tiny numbers can have a big impact. In big numbers, humans have emitted over 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 since the industrial revolution, raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 50%. The added CO2 is adding heat to our atmosphere and oceans at a rate of 5 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second.

Oh and by the way, burning fossil fuels actually decreases the amount of atmospheric O2. Combustion uses O2 and produces CO2. The use of fossil fuels has actually caused a measurable decline of atmospheric O2 (even during time of increased photosynthesis).

 

[hog88]

Yeah, well, there are people in this thread still making the argument that the earth is not warming at all so…


Ah yes, the Brawndo argument. CO2, it’s what plants crave! I’ve seen this one repeated here several times recently. While there’s a nugget of truth to this, the thought process is ridiculously oversimplified. For example, there are more ingredients to photosynthesis than CO2. Plants also need water, which is not keeping up with the increase CO2. Plants also need good soil to grow, and as climates shift toward the poles we lose arable land. There are a number of other issues but these should be easy enough to think through. Like I said there’s a nugget of truth though. There was greening in the latter part of the 20th century. But that trend has already begun to reverse:

Global water use efficiency saturation due to increased vapor pressure deficit

Inhibitive Effects of Recent Exceeding Air Temperature Optima of Vegetation Productivity and Increasing Water Limitation on Photosynthesis Reversed Global Greening

The comparison was to show why “CO2 only constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere, therefore couldn’t possibly have any impact on anything!” is another flawed thought process.

Tiny numbers can have a big impact. In big numbers, humans have emitted over 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 since the industrial revolution, raising the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 50%. The added CO2 is adding heat to our atmosphere and oceans at a rate of 5 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second.

Oh and by the way, burning fossil fuels actually decreases the amount of atmospheric O2. Combustion uses O2 and produces CO2. The use of fossil fuels has actually caused a measurable decline of atmospheric O2 (even during time of increased photosynthesis).

Bart, I’ll give you credit. You are committed, so committed you brush aside any alternatives or dissent.

What are your thoughts on methane naturally released being the driver behind rising temperatures.

MSN

 

[BartW]

I find it so weird that many of these scientists like Bart feel like everyone MUST believe that mankind is responsible for the cyclical global warming we are experiencing. I have worked construction for 30 years now...my ability to go complete projects AND my attitude/contentment regarding what I do has absolutely nothing to do with what people think about it. I don't have to be a "chicken little" and constantly squawk about "the sky is falling!!" In order to do my job, be respected in my field, be a good citizen, or sleep well at night. In fact...I do not know anyone who does need to.

Again I don’t care what you believe personally. I work in construction too. We’re a geotechnical engineering firm. We have engineers and geologists across the political spectrum. Climate change really hardly comes up; maybe occasionally in passing over Friday beers or when it has relevance to a project. Nobody here is squawking but I’m absolutely positive 100% of our company understands climate change is a real problem caused by human fossil fuel emissions. I’d wager the same is true for every earth scientist I’ve ever met in academia or the private sector. The construction guys we work with, that’s a different story

Even in academia there's little squawking. There are a small handful that interact with the public but most scientists just work their niche fields and are interested in the nitty gritty of those specific fields. Of course it's difficult to ignore the climate crisis for any scientists let alone those working in the most relevant fields. But really, most everyone is just doing their jobs, doing research, living their lives.

Why does the world have to be ending (with a new name for it and new "data" every 10 years) for these alarmists to be content? Theres the obvious conflict of interest between squawking and getting endless funds to study them at universities etc, but it seems to run even deeper than that. It is a religious thing for many of these alarmists. They have their preconceived notions that we are to blame for the changes, and ANYONE who disagrees is evil, stupid, ignorant, etc. It is mind blowing. Especially since the data and the cyclical history of our climate show that we are supposed to have higher temperatures etc right now. We are supposed to be in the hottest part of this cycle right now.

Global temperatures peaked most recently about 10,000 years ago and the climate has been relatively stable since then, allowing for the development of human civilization. But the average temperature of the past decade exceeds that of at least the past 100,000 years. The rate of greenhouse gas emissions is comparable to previous mass extinction events millions of years ago. We are way off the natural cycle and it is alarming.

Well said again. I have no problem with Bart either as a person...i would buy him a beer like anyone else here. He is probably a great dude and a Vol as well. I am a little more abrasive than you by nature though lol...

Hey, can confirm, I bleed orange and am literally the easiest person to get along with off the internet. We probably have more in common than you think. I don’t post in politics much or in general and I get that the only time many of you see me it’s when I’m going on and on about climate change… but someone in this place has to be a voice of reason

I guess I don’t really care how I’m viewed on an anonymous message board but I’m just saying I understand we’re all individuals doing our best to live our lives right and the impressions we get from limited interactions with strangers over the internet are always off.

There is SO MUCH deception and misinformation these days that it admittedly aggravates me and seemingly has made Americans very skeptical in general. The government lies incessantly as does the media, people have completely abandoned reality and think that now they can just "make up" whatever fictional gender/animal/door knob they want to identify as....and that everyone else better fall in line and address them as whatever they want to "identify" as this week etc. We are constantly bombarded by lies and distractions, and people have seemingly lost sight of the difference between objective reality and their subjective opinions. Those are 2 very different things.

I would give this ten likes if I could. I wish we could go back in time to where people at least experienced the same reality. It's a bigger problem than any one political issue. With the internet and AI it seems we're only getting stupider. How can we make compromise and solve problems when we can't establish the basic facts?

From a scientific standpoint...I see more and more these days that academics/ scientists have abandoned the Scientific Method. Abandoned testing a hypothesis in a tightly controlled environment by observable, repeatable experimentation and data collection. This is being abandoned and replaced with studies that have a preconceived outcome (like AGW) and then collect data* in order to support their already decided outcome. Then all the other academics who did the same thing get together and scream about their "consensus" as they line up the millions of dollars in grant money for their next multi-year study to of course support the same dire conclusions whose death and destruction never actually came true on the last 500 studies of its kind. Rinse and repeat. We need to establish a means and purpose for research besides the HUGE, unprecedented cash cow right now that is AGW.

Do you have a single concrete example? What research papers have you reviewed? I’m guessing this is all based on the nonsense third(+)-hand opinion pieces you’re force-fed on Facebook etc. And I don’t blame you. I blame the media and everything that has led to the dystopian situation you just described in the previous paragraph.

 

[BartW]

Bart, I’ll give you credit. You are committed, so committed you brush aside any alternatives or dissent.

What are your thoughts on methane naturally released being the driver behind rising temperatures.

MSN

We can measure how much of each gas is in the atmosphere and how much heat each gas is trapping. We can also measure how much of the gases are natural emissions vs. products of combustion. If you think that article is suggesting that the present observed global warming is due entirely to natural methane emissions and not due to human greenhouse gas emissions I think you've made a significant misinterpretation.

Methane is a powerful albeit short-lived greenhouse gas. Scientists have long discussed climate tipping points such as the release of methane by melting permafrost and other natural processes. These are climate feedbacks, not the original forcing. The article even states,

A flurry of studies since 2019 has finally attributed the strange spike to soaring emissions from tropical wetlands, predominantly in Africa. A "significant change" in tropical weather ascribed to human-caused climate change has led wetlands to get bigger and more plants to grow there, thus leading to more decomposition — a process that produces methane, Nisbet said.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[0nelilreb]

I personally don’t think people disbelieve climate change . Every single thing changes , nothing stays the same . It’s the absoluteness of the climate hoax is what people have a hard time with . Climate change has went from let’s do what we can to midigate the damage we cause to taxes , company’s buying more carbon permits , and complete lunacy across the spectrum from one country taxing everyone who breathes to other countries saying we will see how it goes in 25-30 years then we might cut back some ( maybe ) . Then you have the carnival barkers trying to convince people that wind mill blades and EV batteries , the materials used to make them is better for the environment than combustion engines while flying around the world in private jets raising awareness and more funding . Besides war , it will end up being the most profitable scheme the planet has ever known before it’s over .

 

[hog88]

I personally don’t think people disbelieve climate change . Every single thing changes , nothing stays the same . It’s the absoluteness of the climate hoax is what people have a hard time with . Climate change has went from let’s do what we can to midigate the damage we cause to taxes , company’s buying more carbon permits , and complete lunacy across the spectrum from one country taxing everyone who breathes to other countries saying we will see how it goes in 25-30 years then we might cut back some ( maybe ) . Then you have the carnival barkers trying to convince people that wind mill blades and EV batteries , the materials used to make them is better for the environment than combustion engines while flying around the world in private jets raising awareness and more funding . Besides war , it will end up being the most profitable scheme the planet has ever known before it’s over .

Man Made global warming has become a religion for some.

 

[Orangeburst]

evil asswipe

 

[82_VOL_83]

NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) -



It’s the largest event In Recorded History!

but it was caused by climate change...don't you see?????

 

[volinbham]

it's a certainty or consensus funnel if you will - human activity as a cause of global warming? that's at the narrow end of the funnel at the highest level of certainty or put another way the lowest variability in scientific support. as you move out from there to implications of that (and even severity predictions) you move more and more into less certainty/higher variability/wider range of possible outcomes.

my biggest beef is how the climate zealots or those using it as guise for policy conflate the certainty at the narrow end with the outcomes at the other. any number of phenomena are linked to climate change with unwavering certainty that doesn't actually exist in the scientific community.

 

[Grand Vol]

I personally don’t think people disbelieve climate change . Every single thing changes , nothing stays the same . It’s the absoluteness of the climate hoax is what people have a hard time with . Climate change has went from let’s do what we can to midigate the damage we cause to taxes , company’s buying more carbon permits , and complete lunacy across the spectrum from one country taxing everyone who breathes to other countries saying we will see how it goes in 25-30 years then we might cut back some ( maybe ) . Then you have the carnival barkers trying to convince people that wind mill blades and EV batteries , the materials used to make them is better for the environment than combustion engines while flying around the world in private jets raising awareness and more funding . Besides war , it will end up being the most profitable scheme the planet has ever known before it’s over .

Ask the environmental crowd how long wind turbines last.

Then ask them about recycling turbine blades...

Wait for the NPC confused look.

 

[0nelilreb]

Ask the environmental crowd how long wind turbines last.

Then ask them about recycling turbine blades...

Wait for the NPC confused look.

There’s an ugly truth hiding in Wyoming with all those non-recyclable windmill blades

 

[Grand Vol]

There’s an ugly truth hiding in Wyoming with all those non-recyclable windmill blades

Model airplane builders love them with all the balsa wood.

The rest is garbage though lol

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Inflation Reduction Act has nothing to do w/reducing inflation. It was all a Trojan horse to deceive the american public. It's legislation for money added to the left's New Green Deal.
new green deal 2023 - Google Search

 

[82_VOL_83]

DEI is going to change the weather patterns.

Division, exclusion and inequality?

 

[Orangeburst]

ABC News Changes Headline to CIte Climate Change in Maui Wildfires


yep a religion

 

[hUTch2002]

Maybe a dumb question and too lazy to look it up. With all the educated climate scientists we have in this forum, mostly M.S. YTFN, someone should quickly tell me the last time there was rapid fires like this in Hawaii. Thanks

I don’t know but have you heard about the hole in the ozone layer!? Whatever will we do!?

 

[85SugarVol]

ABC News Changes Headline to CIte Climate Change in Maui Wildfires


yep a religion

a NASA spokesperson said climate change might have “nudged” conditions in Maui.

“Might have” nudged. The Science.

 

[hUTch2002]

I thought CNN let Lemon go. I don’t see them bringing him back.

 

[McDad]

Again I agree, a measurement of consensus is not for the scientists that are being surveyed. And are you suggesting the IPCC is just a party where there’s a “Is climate change real” yes/no vote?

I mean I personally don’t care if y’all individually want to believe in a flat earth. But it becomes a problem when half of congress either believes in flat earth or goes along with the wild conspiracy theories because it’s politically convenient.

In the 20th century the scientific community had less agreement about climate change. What’s telling is how a consensus grows over time. And how the consensus grows even stronger when you look at the subsets of scientists that have more relevant expertise or are more frequently published in the field.

The climate contrarians that the denialist blogosphere like to trot out generally fall into one or more categories of non-experts, professor emeritus of adjacent fields who hasn’t published in decades, or are literally funded by far right wing and fossil fuel interests. Many are conveniently also “experts” on tobacco carcinogenicity, acid rain, etc. etc. (and guess what, it turns out every environmental, health and safety issue is non-issue! How convenient!). I know, I know, don’t attack the source; but it’s absolutely worth pointing out. I’m happy to go through the actual science when it’s a good faith discussion with a reasonable person and not just a gish gallop of tired denialist memes.

Hey Bart, what is a "gish gallop"? If i remember correctly, you're from Aus or NZ. Is that a phrase used down under?