Climate Change

[eighterumg5]

So there isn't global warming then?

 

[Fergelmince]

 

[Hellowhosthat]

I have no idea what part of your brain thought this was relevant to anything.

 

[Fergelmince]

 

[Siver!]

Always rely on @Fergelmince to pick the very worst sources!

Someone saying "we can't afford renewable" because they don't want us to be able to afford renewables doesn't mean we can't afford renewables, lol.

It certainly doesn't mean the current technology is optimal, and won't be improved upon.

 

[PhitePhan]

Get ready. the blue states are already teeing you up

 

[Fergelmince]

awesome. I'd give you a "like" but I'm handcuffed with a double yellow.

 

[Fergelmince]

Always rely on @Fergelmince to pick the very worst sources!

Someone saying "we can't afford renewable" because they don't want us to be able to afford renewables doesn't mean we can't afford renewables, lol.

It certainly doesn't mean the current technology is optimal, and won't be improved upon.

I can always count on you to push that hope Siver, you bastard.

 

[Siver!]

I can always count on you to push that hope Siver, you bastard.

Good man!

Sense of humour remained intact, well played dude. I mean that too!

 

[Fergelmince]

Good man!

Sense of humour remained intact, well played dude. I mean that too!

back atchya.

Now do us all a favor, make some calls and get rid of this buffoon

 

[lilelvis]

Okay, I didn't know this is what you believed. How much warming do you believe is actually happening and do you believe it's purely natural or if it's a mix between natural and anthropogenic (CO2)?

I believe the amount of warming is variable by year, by season, by region, etc. It's the weather. Some longer cycles due to solar and ocean current fluctuations are recognized, but our understanding of how it all works is could very well be infantile or maybe more is known that is not being shared. There may be other cosmic factors at play. Who knows, That's why it is theory.
There is so much emphasis on C02 in the climate science debate it seems like a distraction. As we would agree, water vapor is far more of a controlling factor, which makes me wonder about documents like this:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...-on-national-and-global-weather-modification/

So, yeah.. People have a ton to do with the weather..

Certainly not, but vineyards in Scandinavia certainly show that the region is as warm as the MWP and with no natural mechanism shown as the cause. In fact the globe should be cooling a bit as solar irradiance measurements have shown a decrease in the suns output over the past few decades.

MWP crop production records are key, not just the presence of vineyards at the lower elevations. Sometimes we get off in the weeds (I keep doing it) and miss the real point. The MWP was softened to make current patterns appear anomalous. You don't like my sources, but there are others you can find I'm sure. Scientists that maintain government funding aren't the only smart ones out there.

She uses the graph (I'll try and find the original), which I'm a bit skeptical of but it still says Northern Hemisphere, where are the proxies for the southern hemisphere? You mentioned this was global, correct?

I did not. Most of the weather data stations and records are from the northern hemisphere. This is a big problem for global averages, because they rely on modeled data.

But here is another Northern Hemisphere graph showing the MWP, so I'm not sure why you think scientists are trying to erase it?

They didn't set out to erase it, just soften it to fit the C02 narrative. Just like the 30's - 40's.

okay so I looked up the elevation and it's pretty close to sea level. This would make tree population in this location easier, correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendenhall_Glacier

Alaska

Mendenhall Glacier (in Tlingit language “Sít”) is a glacier about 13.6 miles (21.9 km) long located in Mendenhall Valley, about 12 miles (19 km) from downtown Juneau in the southeast area of the U.S. state of Alaska

https://elevation.maplogs.com/poi/mendenhall_valley_juneau_ak_usa.108325.html

Elevation of Mendenhall Valley, Juneau, AK, USA
Location: United States > Alaska > Juneau > Juneau >
Longitude: -134.58525
Latitude: 58.3802682
Elevation: 11m / 36feet
Barometric Pressure: 101KPa

This is another point where we've gotten off into the weeds. Elevation is a factor in tree lines, but the point is, it was a forest during the MWP, and it is a tundra now.

Models start off sucking as there is limited data but as time progresses and more data is available they improve. Do you really believe Darwin's theory was more accurate than todays modern synthesis and genetics? Do you believe that Newtonian Dynamics is more a more complete system than Quantum Mechanics? Sure there is always going to be some politicizing and corruption but to believe that 99.99% (don't know the actual number) of all climate scientists and agencies along with all the governments in the UN and now all of the Oil and Gas companies and the Koch Bros are in this grand left wing conspiracy is in my mind ridiculous compared to the alternative.

Let's not be hyperbolic, we're past that, I hope. Firing all of the scientists that won't tow the line and deleting their independent productions does not constitute any quantifiable percentage of anything.. Every scientist must tow the line or have there credibility destroyed. You know this.
Also, they are all working from the same data.

I'll give it more of a rundown this weekend when I have more time

Take your time, I'm busy, too.

Not at all, but why didn't you mention elevation in your previous point? What are the latitude and elevation points of the findings, we can compare.

I was getting off in the weeds. I'm pretty sure latitude is mentioned in the write-up..

Well you state that warming during MWP doesn't need to be synchronous, but the global temps do need to be averaged per time period to show a warming trend. Do you agree?

Yes, but modeled data in most of the southern hemisphere is highly unreliable.


You don't believe climate "denialists" may have an agenda as well and may manipulate presented data?

I do, and I've stated as much.. "I think the pre-politicization studies are far more honest, on both sides of it"

I don't think I've mentioned Potholer, that may have been another poster. I asked you twice about Heller's own article where he states that Mann predicted the 4 degree difference if we got a doubling of atmospheric CO2 as a sort of gotcha. The thing he failed to notice was that we didn't get a doubling of CO2 which makes his "gotcha" extremely strange and ironic. Care to comment on it?

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/climate-change.4123651/page-23#post-168904587

Sure. Heller was wrong to do that, and Mann was way fucking wrong, again.


That was a topic of discussion for us in the past and you chose to withdraw if I remember correctly.

You don't consider my sources but you can see this yourself, easily, if you look with an honest eye. I only withdrew because you were using attrition as a tactic and I don't have time to write out every point made in a video or re-write every paper I post. An honest discussion is the two of us making our points and discussing them earnestly. Trying to snipe each other and ask leading questions while ignoring the real substance of a post and trying to make one another look stupid is not productive.

I await your statement on how much real warming is happening and what is causing it.

I don't know. We don't have enough global data collection at this point to make a definitive statement. The problem we face is modeling with amped up C02 sensitivity trying to prove a predetermined conclusion. That's why so many folks don't take the "Climate Crisis" narrative very seriously.

My responses are in the body, in Yellow. Seems to be the easiest way..

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

My responses are in the body, in Yellow. Seems to be the easiest way..

I believe the amount of warming is variable by year, by season, by region, etc. It's the weather. Some longer cycles due to solar and ocean current fluctuations are recognized, but our understanding of how it all works is could very well be infantile or maybe more is known that is not being shared. There may be other cosmic factors at play. Who knows, That's why it is theory.
There is so much emphasis on C02 in the climate science debate it seems like a distraction. As we would agree, water vapor is far more of a controlling factor, which makes me wonder about documents like this:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...-on-national-and-global-weather-modification/

So, yeah.. People have a ton to do with the weather..

Two parts here, yes we have a negative solar irradiation trend recorded by our satellites; in other words we should be cooling. How can we still be in a warming trend (which you've stated you've never denied) if this is the case?

Spoiler

Yes, water vapor in the atmosphere has been rising steadily in the atmosphere and is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As you know, the evaporation of water speeds up when it gets warmer. Scientists currently believe that CO2 started and continued the rise in temp and water vapor increased, accelerated and amplified the warming in a positive feedback loop.

Is this what you believe as well or do you believe there is another cause for the increased H2O in the atmosphere?

Spoiler

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/558

MWP crop production records are key, not just the presence of vineyards at the lower elevations. Sometimes we get off in the weeds (I keep doing it) and miss the real point. The MWP was softened to make current patterns appear anomalous. You don't like my sources, but there are others you can find I'm sure. Scientists that maintain government funding aren't the only smart ones out there.

I agree, you do go off into the weeds with what you think are "gotchas" at times and when we examine them closer they get dropped. As far as your comment about government funded scientists, do you have any theories as to why Exxon funded scientists found the link with CO2 and rising temperatures developed CO2 climate models? These finding undoubtedly hurt their bottom line so it seems strange.

Exxon
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Su...obil-four-decades-of-climate-science-research

Do you know why Russian scientists funded by sanctioned Russian energy companies also acknowledge man made climate change as once again doing so goes against their profitability?

Russian Lukoil
https://www.lukoil.com/Sustainability/Climatechange/GHGEmissions#:~:text=LUKOIL has set an objective,Program of the LUKOIL Group.

Gazprom
https://sustainability.gazpromrepor...of-our-planet/43-climate-protection-measures/

I did not. Most of the weather data stations and records are from the northern hemisphere. This is a big problem for global averages, because they rely on modeled data.

I just looked and it was Joanne Nova that said they were global

They didn't set out to erase it, just soften it to fit the C02 narrative. Just like the 30's - 40's

Even if the MWP was considered warmer in some locations than today why would that be an issue, the causes were different. It wasn't CO2 driving it in the past.

This is another point where we've gotten off into the weeds. Elevation is a factor in tree lines, but the point is, it was a forest during the MWP, and it is a tundra now.

The MWP was what 400 years? Up until recently it was underneath a glacier, now it's tundra and if the trajectory continues it will be forest again. Give it some time, that's my point.

Let's not be hyperbolic, we're past that, I hope. Firing all of the scientists that won't tow the line and deleting their independent productions does not constitute any quantifiable percentage of anything.. Every scientist must tow the line or have there credibility destroyed. You know this. Also, they are all working from the same data.

It is not hyperbolic, if what you are saying is true then the overwhelming majority of scientists are stupid or corrupt. How could there be any scientific breakthroughs if every scientist just had to support the current paradigm? The fields of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Genetics etc. began because someone went against the current paradigm with new discoveries.

I was getting off in the weeds. I'm pretty sure latitude is mentioned in the write-up..

It really doesn't matter, this forest that you've mentioned is nothing really novel in this argument

Sure. Heller was wrong to do that, and Mann was way fucking wrong, again.

Heller hasn't correct it, it's still on his website. You quote guys like Heller and Deming, go off into the weeds with this forest and you wonder why I question your sources?

You don't consider my sources but you can see this yourself, easily, if you look with an honest eye. I only withdrew because you were using attrition as a tactic and I don't have time to write out every point made in a video or re-write every paper I post. An honest discussion is the two of us making our points and discussing them earnestly. Trying to snipe each other and ask leading questions while ignoring the real substance of a post and trying to make one another look stupid is not productive.

You first chastised me for not looking at your sources, now you're criticizing me for looking at your sources and trying to discuss them with you? You're doing this now with your "weeds" examples, you bring them up and now that we're examining them you want to drop them... Why do you bring sources/topics up if you don't want to discuss them?

I don't know. We don't have enough global data collection at this point to make a definitive statement. The problem we face is modeling with amped up C02 sensitivity trying to prove a predetermined conclusion. That's why so many folks don't take the "Climate Crisis" narrative very seriously.

That's the thing, it doesn't have to be 100% definitive as new data is continually being gathered. If there is data, a theory can be formed. With only the data that it is indeed warming (something that you haven't denied) do you understand why scientists believe it is CO2?

 

[emefer]

Every location I search on my weather app shows that temperatures are rising historically.
Seems like a bunch of folk are the Frog in a pot on the fire

 

[squeezewax]

Here is Dr Patrick Moore, one of the original people in Greenpeace. In a different interview i saw with him ages ago he explained why he left Greenpeace. He said that they became more and more anti-human. My thoughts:We are always hearing how shit humans are and we are conditioned to believe it. We never, or rarely, hear about how great humans have been/are at saving animals and preserving a species. Or about people who buy up lots of land so that no one can ever build on it. They keep it just the way it is, for the animals, Brian May from Queen has done this.

Anyway. It's around a 12 minute video where he tells the truth about 'climate change.'
https://odysee.com/@truearrow:e/climate-alarmism-with-dr.-patrick-moore:c

 

[squeezewax]

In this 8 minute video he talks about Polar Bears and fake news.[but he never talks about Mars Bars for some reason.]
https://odysee.com/@truearrow:e/patrick-moore-discusses-polar-bears-and:d

 

[ShadBo]

In this 8 minute video he talks about Polar Bears and fake news.[but he never talks about Mars Bars for some reason.]
https://odysee.com/@truearrow:e/patrick-moore-discusses-polar-bears-and:d

Here is Dr Patrick Moore, one of the original people in Greenpeace. In a different interview i saw with him ages ago he explained why he left Greenpeace. He said that they became more and more anti-human. My thoughts:We are always hearing how shit humans are and we are conditioned to believe it. We never, or rarely, hear about how great humans have been/are at saving animals and preserving a species. Or about people who buy up lots of land so that no one can ever build on it. They keep it just the way it is, for the animals, Brian May from Queen has done this.

Anyway. It's around a 12 minute video where he tells the truth about 'climate change.'
https://odysee.com/@truearrow:e/climate-alarmism-with-dr.-patrick-moore:c

Does any of this change the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere allows heat from the sun in but prevents it from radiating out into space?

 

[dirtypablo]

Here is Dr Patrick Moore, one of the original people in Greenpeace. In a different interview i saw with him ages ago he explained why he left Greenpeace. He said that they became more and more anti-human. My thoughts:We are always hearing how shit humans are and we are conditioned to believe it. We never, or rarely, hear about how great humans have been/are at saving animals and preserving a species. Or about people who buy up lots of land so that no one can ever build on it. They keep it just the way it is, for the animals, Brian May from Queen has done this.

Anyway. It's around a 12 minute video where he tells the truth about 'climate change.'
https://odysee.com/@truearrow:e/climate-alarmism-with-dr.-patrick-moore:c

The fact that he's talking to children is pretty fitting.

I only listened to a couple minutes, but his analysis of the situation is one I would expect from a child. Hey, the world was warmer in the past, so what's the big deal? Billions of people may have to move and settle into entirely new areas, trillions of dollars of infrastructure may be destroyed, farmland that feeds hundreds of millions of people will no longer be able to reliably produce, entire ecosystems will collapse, but hey, the earth has been here before! Who cares!


Might as well say who gives a shit about a giant asteroid heading towards us because, hey, it's happened before.

 

[no fat chicks]

Here's some unbiased basics about climate change.

Learn this stuff and argue from there chuds.
Or remain forever ignorant and be laughed out of rooms.

 

[lilelvis]

Two parts here, yes we have a negative solar irradiation trend recorded by our satellites; in other words we should be cooling. How can we still be in a warming trend (which you've stated you've never denied) if this is the case?

Spoiler

Yes, water vapor in the atmosphere has been rising steadily in the atmosphere and is an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As you know, the evaporation of water speeds up when it gets warmer. Scientists currently believe that CO2 started and continued the rise in temp and water vapor increased, accelerated and amplified the warming in a positive feedback loop.

Is this what you believe as well or do you believe there is another cause for the increased H2O in the atmosphere?

Spoiler

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/558

I agree, you do go off into the weeds with what you think are "gotchas" at times and when we examine them closer they get dropped. As far as your comment about government funded scientists, do you have any theories as to why Exxon funded scientists found the link with CO2 and rising temperatures developed CO2 climate models? These finding undoubtedly hurt their bottom line so it seems strange.

Exxon
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/Su...obil-four-decades-of-climate-science-research

Do you know why Russian scientists funded by sanctioned Russian energy companies also acknowledge man made climate change as once again doing so goes against their profitability?

Russian Lukoil
https://www.lukoil.com/Sustainability/Climatechange/GHGEmissions#:~:text=LUKOIL has set an objective,Program of the LUKOIL Group.

Gazprom
https://sustainability.gazpromrepor...of-our-planet/43-climate-protection-measures/



I just looked and it was Joanne Nova that said they were global



Even if the MWP was considered warmer in some locations than today why would that be an issue, the causes were different. It wasn't CO2 driving it in the past.



The MWP was what 400 years? Up until recently it was underneath a glacier, now it's tundra and if the trajectory continues it will be forest again. Give it some time, that's my point.



It is not hyperbolic, if what you are saying is true then the overwhelming majority of scientists are stupid or corrupt. How could there be any scientific breakthroughs if every scientist just had to support the current paradigm? The fields of General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Genetics etc. began because someone went against the current paradigm with new discoveries.



It really doesn't matter, this forest that you've mentioned is nothing really novel in this argument



Heller hasn't correct it, it's still on his website. You quote guys like Heller and Deming, go off into the weeds with this forest and you wonder why I question your sources?



You first chastised me for not looking at your sources, now you're criticizing me for looking at your sources and trying to discuss them with you? You're doing this now with your "weeds" examples, you bring them up and now that we're examining them you want to drop them... Why do you bring sources/topics up if you don't want to discuss them?



That's the thing, it doesn't have to be 100% definitive as new data is continually being gathered. If there is data, a theory can be formed. With only the data that it is indeed warming (something that you haven't denied) do you understand why scientists believe it is CO2?

I am forced to concede: There is absolutely man made climate change.
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...-on-national-and-global-weather-modification/

Full text:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...licy, And Potential (May 1978, 784 pages).pdf

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I am forced to concede: There is absolutely man made climate change.
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org...-on-national-and-global-weather-modification/

Full text:
https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/Weather Modification - Programs, Problems, Policy, And Potential (May 1978, 784 pages).pdf

This is weak as hell, you're not going to address my points like I did with yours?