Red Cross Weighs in on Climate Change

Media_Truth said:

The certainty is no longer even debateable. It is now a question of how much warming we will experience. Atmospheric CO2 currently stands at 411 PPM. A recent NASA article showed that if we burnt all available fossil fuels, our CO2 would climb to 1500 PPM. The big question is - will the world continue with the current carbon economy, or can we start reducing our usage of fossil fuels to stop atmospheric CO2 levels from getting much higher.

Click to expand...

The reduction in the use of Fossil fuels will occur when the next, better fuel is invented.

It will need to be more plentiful, cheaper, more portable and more convenient.

At this point in history, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most powerful, most portable and most plentiful source of energy ever discovered.

Fossil Fuels have allowed the incredible growth of population and wealth that has occurred since about 1850 world wide.

The more logical short term solution is to discover how to clean up the exhaust fumes.

The longer term solution is to figure out a way to either make a 747 fly using solar only or to harvest hydrogen from the air to power ICE's.

I like the Hydrogen solution as the exhaust is H2O. That's just me, though. Of course, there's that whole how would it work thingy. We have genius inventors to figure that out.

I see on commercials that nebulizers now harvest and concentrate oxygen from the air. Maybe there's hope. Imagine an air intake on a car that harvests, concentrates and compresses to liquid hydrogen as a fuel.

Now THAT would be an answer that would displace Fossil Fuels immediately. It's clearly the superior option to fossil fuels and would democratize energy world wide instantaneously.

code1211 said:

When the people were driven from the African plains by desertification to Egypt, it caused books to be written. Moses was in one of them.

Click to expand...

Are you for reals?

I never said that desertification is a brand-new phenomena.

Judaism was started in Canaan (what is now Israel). They didn't mass migrate to and/or from Egypt. Do you really not understand that the Torah is not a historical document?

The MINNPOST article re-states what I just posted... Connect the dots.

Click to expand...

Connect the dots, between your cherry-picked claims? Hard pass. Read the article.

You are relying heavily on the New York Times as your source for propaganda. This is an EXCELLENT source for propaganda, so, there's that...

Click to expand...

:roll:

How Climate Change Is Driving Central American Migrants to the United States
Hunger driving migration in drought-hit Central America: U.N. - Reuters
Climate change is contributing to the migration of Central American refugees
Climate change is devastating Central America, driving migrants to the U.S. border
Climate change is pushing Central American migrants to the US | Lauren Markham | Opinion | The Guardian
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...mmigration-women-caravan-coffee-a9021536.html

Your lie about climate being warmer than it has been for 120,000 years is just that: A LIE. If it's not a lie, why is there still ice today where ice was not 7000 years ago? At some point, empirical evidence must be observed.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Read the Mashable article.

As to ice: Hello, McFly? We have direct empirical evidence of glacial retreat all over the planet.



https://wgms.ch/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-glacier-mass-balance

And yes, that includes the aforementioned Glacier National Park. For those of us who don't get our news from climate deniers and factless right-wing websites: There were 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park in 1850. Today, there are 26. The area covered by glaciers is also significantly down. And yes, some glaciers did still exist ~8000 years ago in what is now GNP.

There are at least 50 discreet causes of climate change....

Click to expand...

:roll:

The fact that natural events can cause changes in the climate does not disprove the fact that human activity is causing almost all of the climate change since 1750.

I don't know of anyone who dismisses the Green House Effect of Green House Gases. However, claiming that mankind can control and direct the climate of the planet by manipulating the emission of CO2 is just crazy. It's not that powerful and we do not have that kind of unity.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is that powerful. We know for a fact that an increase of CO2 from 180ppm to 260ppm increased global temperatures by 2C; we also know, for a fact, that human activity has increased CO2 levels from 260ppm to over 400ppm. We know for a fact that CO2 takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere.

And yes, we have empirical evidence to back it up. E.g.:
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf

Even as a GHG, CO2 comprises well under 5% of all of the GHG's present in our air.

Click to expand...

:roll:

When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere warms. This causes feedback effects. One of the most important of these is that it puts more water vapor (the most abundant GHG) into the atmosphere.

Plus, the amount of CO2 relative to other gases is not relevant to its impact. E.g. there is very little CFC-12 in the atmosphere right now, and a tiny amount compared to the amounts of water vapor or CO2. That does not change the fact that for the equivalent mass, it is nearly 10,000 times more potent of a GHG than CO2.

Stop ignoring the science, kthx.

code1211 said:

The reduction in the use of Fossil fuels will occur when the next, better fuel is invented.

It will need to be more plentiful, cheaper, more portable and more convenient.

At this point in history, fossil fuels are the cheapest, most powerful, most portable and most plentiful source of energy ever discovered.

Fossil Fuels have allowed the incredible growth of population and wealth that has occurred since about 1850 world wide.

The more logical short term solution is to discover how to clean up the exhaust fumes.

The longer term solution is to figure out a way to either make a 747 fly using solar only or to harvest hydrogen from the air to power ICE's.

I like the Hydrogen solution as the exhaust is H2O. That's just me, though. Of course, there's that whole how would it work thingy. We have genius inventors to figure that out.

I see on commercials that nebulizers now harvest and concentrate oxygen from the air. Maybe there's hope. Imagine an air intake on a car that harvests, concentrates and compresses to liquid hydrogen as a fuel.

Now THAT would be an answer that would displace Fossil Fuels immediately. It's clearly the superior option to fossil fuels and would democratize energy world wide instantaneously.

Click to expand...

I use an electric car, and I power it from the sun. Works out great for me, and a lot of other people. And it works out better financially. Maybe you should look into it.

Visbek said:

Are you for reals?

I never said that desertification is a brand-new phenomena.

Judaism was started in Canaan (what is now Israel). They didn't mass migrate to and/or from Egypt. Do you really not understand that the Torah is not a historical document?



Connect the dots, between your cherry-picked claims? Hard pass. Read the article.



:roll:


Read the Mashable article.

As to ice: Hello, McFly? We have direct empirical evidence of glacial retreat all over the planet.

View attachment 67262688

https://wgms.ch/
Climate Change: Glacier Mass Balance | NOAA Climate.gov

And yes, that includes the aforementioned Glacier National Park. For those of us who don't get our news from climate deniers and factless right-wing websites: There were 150 glaciers in Glacier National Park in 1850. Today, there are 26. The area covered by glaciers is also significantly down. And yes, some glaciers did still exist ~8000 years ago in what is now GNP.



:roll:

The fact that natural events can cause changes in the climate does not disprove the fact that human activity is causing almost all of the climate change since 1750.



Yes, it is that powerful. We know for a fact that an increase of CO2 from 180ppm to 260ppm increased global temperatures by 2C; we also know, for a fact, that human activity has increased CO2 levels from 260ppm to over 400ppm. We know for a fact that CO2 takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere.

And yes, we have empirical evidence to back it up. E.g.:
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf



:roll:

When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the atmosphere warms. This causes feedback effects. One of the most important of these is that it puts more water vapor (the most abundant GHG) into the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

(edited for length)


I mentioned the Sharan Desertification only to emphasize that climate change is ongoing and has never stopped since it began billions of years ago.

You say, interestingly, that an increase of CO2 increased temperature. You say that we know this as a fact. You accept much as a fact that is not factual.

What we know is that as the CO2 increased, the temperature also increased. During this period of instrument measurements, this correlation is presented as being geologically instantaneous.

During the time measured in your dubiously sourced graph, the correlation took several hundreds, maybe thousands, of years. Why does CO2 as presented in your examples work differently now than it did then?

I keep presenting real world, temperature driven empirical evidence which shows very clearly that the majority of glaciers on this planet were not there 7000 years ago and that they ARE THERE today.

When it's warm enough to melt ice, the ice melts. This is real world evidence.

You, on the other hand are presenting double talking stupidity to support propaganda.

It was warmer in the past when the CO2 was lower. We know this because the glaciers that are melting today are revealing artifacts that were frozen UNDER GLACIERS for thousands of years.

We also know that glaciers outside of Greenland and Antarctica are geologically short lived and do not have the depth to produce ice core records longer than several thousand years.

If you are trying to prove that today's warming is unprecedented, unusual and unnatural, you're missing the boat.

Today's warming is normal, a repeating occurrence on this planet and has happened naturally in more extreme temperature ranges concurrent with much, much lower CO2 concentrations.

The warming impact of every incremental increase of CO2 diminishes as the concentration increases. The first 20 ppm has a very string impact. The latest 20 ppm has almost no impact. Correlation is not causation.

From the IPCC:



Is it good to have extremely higher CO2 concentrations departing from levels in which we evolved? Probably not. Will the higher CO2 concentrations drive catastrophic climate change? Again, probably not.

The question I am addressing here is only the one regarding climate change. Pollution in general is another area of thinking that is equally perverted by politics, but separate from Climate Change.

Media_Truth said:

I use an electric car, and I power it from the sun. Works out great for me, and a lot of other people. And it works out better financially. Maybe you should look into it.

View attachment 67262725

Click to expand...

What was the cost of the Car? What was the amount of the subsidy paid by taxpayers to help you buy it? Did you install solar panels? What did they cost?

I drive from Indy to Duluth, Minnesota annually. Also to Rochester, New York from Indy. I plan to visit Philly next Spring. Can you make these day trips in your e-car?

code1211 said:

I mentioned the Sharan Desertification only to emphasize that climate change is ongoing....

Click to expand...

No one ever said otherwise. Again, the existence of natural climate change does NOT disprove AGW.

You say, interestingly, that an increase of CO2 increased temperature. You say that we know this as a fact.

Click to expand...

That's because... wait for it... it is a FACT that increases in CO2 the atmosphere cause increases in global temperatures.

Why does CO2 as presented in your examples work differently now than it did then?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. I already told you that it takes decades, if not centuries, for increases in GHGs to cause increases in temperatures. Pay attention.

I keep presenting real world, temperature driven empirical evidence which shows very clearly that the majority of glaciers on this planet were not there 7000 years ago and that they ARE THERE today.

Click to expand...

And again, I already told you that the empirical evidence already shows that those glaciers are already disappearing around the world -- and quite rapidly. The loss of glaciers, by the way, is one of the reasons why fresh water supplies are shrinking. See how that works?

The warming impact of every incremental increase of CO2 diminishes as the concentration increases. The first 20 ppm has a very string impact. The latest 20 ppm has almost no impact.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Yes, climate scientists are aware that increases in CO2 are not linear. They are the ones telling you that it is not linear, and why it is not linear. To wit:

Baseline is 280ppm, ECS of 2.5
Increase of 280ppm to 300ppm: Adds 0.169C, total increase relative to 280ppm is 0.169C
Increase of 380ppm to 400ppm: Adds 0.115C, total increase relative to 280ppm is 2 0.867C
Increase of 580ppm to 600ppm: Adds 0.086C, total increase relative to 280ppm is 1.888C

So yes, the curve bends (and yes, that's reflected in climate change scenarios). However, the curve is not that dramatic. I.e. it is patently false to claim that the recent increase from 380ppm to 400ppm has "almost no impact."

Correlation is not causation.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Congratulations on not even trying to understand climate science. The evidence is not limited to correlation. We also have tons of evidence demonstrating that CO2 is a GHG, and that increases in temperatures due to increases in CO2 set off a variety of feedback effects.

From the IPCC

Click to expand...

Is it from the IPCC? Because according to the code, it's from WUWT. No wonder you get so much wrong.

Anyway....

Is it good to have extremely higher CO2 concentrations departing from levels in which we evolved? Probably not. Will the higher CO2 concentrations drive catastrophic climate change? Again, probably not.

Click to expand...

:roll:

As I have told you before: There is no one single magic number at which CO2 and/or global temperatures "must" hold. The problem is that human activity is causing changes to the climate that are both rapid and extensive. When global temperatures rise by 2C over 5000 years, that is going to be disruptive, but gives more time to adapt. When global temperatures rise by 2C in 250 years, and there are 7 billion plus humans on the planet, 40% of whom live in coastal areas to boot? That's going to be very disruptive, and gives life (including us) very little time to adapt.

And as usual, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." As painful as it may seem to cut back on CO2 emissions, suffering from and trying to mitigate the effects of climate change will be much, much more painful.

So yes, higher CO2 concentrations WILL drive catastrophic climate change. There is no reasonable doubt about that. All you're doing is spouting irrational unscientific garbage, and willfully ignoring the science, over and over and over again.

Let us know when you decide to drop the propaganda nonsense, and actually look at the science, kthx.

code1211 said:

What was the cost of the Car? What was the amount of the subsidy paid by taxpayers to help you buy it? Did you install solar panels? What did they cost?

I drive from Indy to Duluth, Minnesota annually. Also to Rochester, New York from Indy. I plan to visit Philly next Spring. Can you make these day trips in your e-car?

Click to expand...

My car is actually a plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt), so it can go all the way across the United States, if I so desire. However, 99% of my driving is all-electric, with total trips being under 50 miles. The Volt was purchased for about $32K in 2018. There was a $6500 federal tax credit, and a $5000 state tax credit. My solar PVs and wind turbine were purchased in 2011 ($38K), and there was a $13K Federal tax credit, and a $6500 State tax rebate. The solar and wind have now paid for themselves. The Volt is saving us thousands in fuel costs and maintenance.

The Iraqi Oil War cost taxpayers $6 Trillion. Nuclear energy has an entire bureaucratic department of the federal government - the NRC. What you also fail to understand is that your governmental officials are those who are responsible for compliance to EPA air quality specifications. Nearly every major city is frequently out of compliance. These types of incentives help to alleviate these problems. Also, you also fail to grasp peak loading of Utilities. Solar PV systems are peak load producers, and prevent additional power plants from having to be built. This holds electricity costs down for everybody.

Media_Truth said:

My car is actually a plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt), so it can go all the way across the United States, if I so desire. However, 99% of my driving is all-electric, with total trips being under 50 miles. The Volt was purchased for about $32K in 2018. There was a $6500 federal tax credit, and a $5000 state tax credit. My solar PVs and wind turbine were purchased in 2011 ($38K), and there was a $13K Federal tax credit, and a $6500 State tax rebate. The solar and wind have now paid for themselves. The Volt is saving us thousands in fuel costs and maintenance.

The Iraqi Oil War cost taxpayers $6 Trillion. Nuclear energy has an entire bureaucratic department of the federal government - the NRC. What you also fail to understand is that your governmental officials are those who are responsible for compliance to EPA air quality specifications. Nearly every major city is frequently out of compliance. These types of incentives help to alleviate these problems. Also, you also fail to grasp peak loading of Utilities. Solar PV systems are peak load producers, and prevent additional power plants from having to be built. This holds electricity costs down for everybody.

Click to expand...

The Iraq war was not about oil.

Jack Hays said:

The Iraq war was not about oil.

Click to expand...

Naivety abounds. In your world of Bush/Cheney unbridled trust, just what was the Iraq war about?

Media_Truth said:

Naivety abounds. In your world of Bush/Cheney unbridled trust, just what was the Iraq war about?

Click to expand...

Finishing the job of the first Iraq war. The Bush/43 administration entered office intending to invade Iraq.

Jack Hays said:

Finishing the job of the first Iraq war. The Bush/43 administration entered office intending to invade Iraq.

Click to expand...

Wrong, but you're certainly welcome to provide a link. You really should study the attempts of Western control of Iraqi oil through PSAs (Production Sharing Agreements). It was a dismal failure just like every Bush/Cheney action.

Visbek said:

No one ever said otherwise. Again, the existence of natural climate change does NOT disprove AGW.



That's because... wait for it... it is a FACT that increases in CO2 the atmosphere cause increases in global temperatures.



It doesn't. I already told you that it takes decades, if not centuries, for increases in GHGs to cause increases in temperatures. Pay attention.



And again, I already told you that the empirical evidence already shows that those glaciers are already disappearing around the world -- and quite rapidly. The loss of glaciers, by the way, is one of the reasons why fresh water supplies are shrinking. See how that works?



:roll:

Yes, climate scientists are aware that increases in CO2 are not linear. They are the ones telling you that it is not linear, and why it is not linear. To wit:

Baseline is 280ppm, ECS of 2.5
Increase of 280ppm to 300ppm: Adds 0.169C, total increase relative to 280ppm is 0.169C
Increase of 380ppm to 400ppm: Adds 0.115C, total increase relative to 280ppm is 2 0.867C
Increase of 580ppm to 600ppm: Adds 0.086C, total increase relative to 280ppm is 1.888C

So yes, the curve bends (and yes, that's reflected in climate change scenarios). However, the curve is not that dramatic. I.e. it is patently false to claim that the recent increase from 380ppm to 400ppm has "almost no impact."



:roll:

Congratulations on not even trying to understand climate science. The evidence is not limited to correlation. We also have tons of evidence demonstrating that CO2 is a GHG, and that increases in temperatures due to increases in CO2 set off a variety of feedback effects.



Is it from the IPCC? Because according to the code, it's from WUWT. No wonder you get so much wrong.

Anyway....



:roll:

As I have told you before: There is no one single magic number at which CO2 and/or global temperatures "must" hold. The problem is that human activity is causing changes to the climate that are both rapid and extensive. When global temperatures rise by 2C over 5000 years, that is going to be disruptive, but gives more time to adapt. When global temperatures rise by 2C in 250 years, and there are 7 billion plus humans on the planet, 40% of whom live in coastal areas to boot? That's going to be very disruptive, and gives life (including us) very little time to adapt.

And as usual, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." As painful as it may seem to cut back on CO2 emissions, suffering from and trying to mitigate the effects of climate change will be much, much more painful.

So yes, higher CO2 concentrations WILL drive catastrophic climate change. There is no reasonable doubt about that. All you're doing is spouting irrational unscientific garbage, and willfully ignoring the science, over and over and over again.

Let us know when you decide to drop the propaganda nonsense, and actually look at the science, kthx.

Click to expand...

We are talking past each other and that is probably how you like it.

The glaciers that are melting today did not exist 7000 years ago because it was too warm.

The CO2 atmospheric concentration was much lower then than it is now.

We have not yet attained a warming equal to the level of 7000 years ago. 7000 years ago, the globe was COOLER than it was 8000 years ago.

Your case says that the globe is warming today and that the only possible cause is the actions of man.

My case says that the globe has been warmer before and that the previous, more dramatic warming occurred absent the actions of man that you cite.

It is not up to me to prove that the current cause IS NOT attributable man. It IS up to you prove that it is exclusively attributable to man.

Since this warming is not unprecedented and is not unusual and has occurred in the past and has been exceeded in the past, it seems pretty reasonable to see it as being within the range of natural variation.

Why do you see it as being outside the range of natural variation and why do you think that our entire civilization needs to be scrapped because of it?

climate4you welcome

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.

Media_Truth said:

My car is actually a plug-in hybrid (Chevy Volt), so it can go all the way across the United States, if I so desire. However, 99% of my driving is all-electric, with total trips being under 50 miles. The Volt was purchased for about $32K in 2018. There was a $6500 federal tax credit, and a $5000 state tax credit. My solar PVs and wind turbine were purchased in 2011 ($38K), and there was a $13K Federal tax credit, and a $6500 State tax rebate. The solar and wind have now paid for themselves. The Volt is saving us thousands in fuel costs and maintenance.

The Iraqi Oil War cost taxpayers $6 Trillion. Nuclear energy has an entire bureaucratic department of the federal government - the NRC. What you also fail to understand is that your governmental officials are those who are responsible for compliance to EPA air quality specifications. Nearly every major city is frequently out of compliance. These types of incentives help to alleviate these problems. Also, you also fail to grasp peak loading of Utilities. Solar PV systems are peak load producers, and prevent additional power plants from having to be built. This holds electricity costs down for everybody.

Click to expand...

$38,000 ?

My electric bill is around $110.00 per month.

That would take a little under 30 years to pay back assuming no inflation.

The Iraq War was stupid on many levels.

Media_Truth said:

Wrong, but you're certainly welcome to provide a link. You really should study the attempts of Western control of Iraqi oil through PSAs (Production Sharing Agreements). It was a dismal failure just like every Bush/Cheney action.

Click to expand...

We had absolute control of Iraq for several years. Had we wanted the oil, we would have taken the oil.

[h=3]O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14 ... - CNN.com
[/h]
[url]https://www.cnn.com › ALLPOLITICS › oneill
[/URL]

Jan 14, 2004 - The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former ... "One of them marked 'secret' says 'Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.'" ... 30, 40 countries and which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq.".

code1211 said:

The glaciers that are melting today did not exist 7000 years ago because it was too warm. The CO2 atmospheric concentration was much lower then than it is now.

We have not yet attained a warming equal to the level of 7000 years ago. 7000 years ago, the globe was COOLER than it was 8000 years ago.

Click to expand...

:roll:

Y'know, rather than lecture me on "reading past you," try reading what I'm writing. I'm agreeing that most of the glaciers formed in the past 7000 years. I'm also pointing out that those recent glaciers are disappearing.

I'm also pointing out that it takes a long time for the full impacts of a rise in CO2 to hit. There are long delays between emitting CO2 and surface temperatures rising -- decades or centuries. And since glaciers are much thicker than the ice cubes you put in your soda, it takes decades or centuries for them to melt. Meaning that when the full impact of the CO2 we've already emitted is felt, and if we do not find some highly effective way to reverse the damage we've done, then global temperatures will be significantly warmer than they were 7000 years ago. They are more likely to hit temperature levels that the world hasn't had in nearly 1 million years.

My case says that the globe has been warmer before and that the previous, more dramatic warming occurred absent the actions of man that you cite. It is not up to me to prove that the current cause IS NOT attributable man.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is, because your denialist crap is buried by an avalanche of actual, solid, repeatable scientific evidence.

You are in the same position as someone who tries to claim that "cigarettes are not carcinogenic" or "the sun orbits the Earth."

Since this warming is not unprecedented and is not unusual and has occurred in the past and has been exceeded in the past, it seems pretty reasonable to see it as being within the range of natural variation.

Click to expand...

Assertion is not proof. You have not given one iota of data to back this up. In fact, the only thing you've offered are charts that you clearly do not understand.

Why do you see it as being outside the range of natural variation and why do you think that our entire civilization needs to be scrapped because of it?

Click to expand...

:roll:

Spare us the hyperbolic bull****. Replacing fossil fuels with other energy sources, eating less meat, and putting on a sweater instead of blasting the heat is not "scrapping an entire civilization." It's barely more than a mild inconvenience.

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.

Click to expand...

:roll:

News flash! When you jam over 400,000 years of history into one small chart, that type of chart makes it impossible to detect the rate at which different periods warmed. Yeesh.

Visbek said:

:roll:

Y'know, rather than lecture me on "reading past you," try reading what I'm writing. I'm agreeing that most of the glaciers formed in the past 7000 years. I'm also pointing out that those recent glaciers are disappearing.

I'm also pointing out that it takes a long time for the full impacts of a rise in CO2 to hit. There are long delays between emitting CO2 and surface temperatures rising -- decades or centuries. And since glaciers are much thicker than the ice cubes you put in your soda, it takes decades or centuries for them to melt. Meaning that when the full impact of the CO2 we've already emitted is felt, and if we do not find some highly effective way to reverse the damage we've done, then global temperatures will be significantly warmer than they were 7000 years ago. They are more likely to hit temperature levels that the world hasn't had in nearly 1 million years.



Yes, it is, because your denialist crap is buried by an avalanche of actual, solid, repeatable scientific evidence.

You are in the same position as someone who tries to claim that "cigarettes are not carcinogenic" or "the sun orbits the Earth."



Assertion is not proof. You have not given one iota of data to back this up. In fact, the only thing you've offered are charts that you clearly do not understand.



:roll:

Spare us the hyperbolic bull****. Replacing fossil fuels with other energy sources, eating less meat, and putting on a sweater instead of blasting the heat is not "scrapping an entire civilization." It's barely more than a mild inconvenience.



:roll:

News flash! When you jam over 400,000 years of history into one small chart, that type of chart makes it impossible to detect the rate at which different periods warmed. Yeesh.

Click to expand...

It's nice that you finally are agreeing that the glaciers that are disappearing today are very young geologically and that even within this interglacial, there were warmer temperatures that caused them to melt previously.

ANOTHER PREDICTION of dire consequence. You do understand, don't you, that the prediction of dire consequence is the stock in trade of politics, not science.

I used to do a little more drinking than a wise person would do. However, I don't think I ever asserted the claims that you attribute to me regarding the orbit of the Sun or health impacts of cigarettes.

Were you thinking of a different poster?

What I assert regarding climate history is pretty much accepted fact. It really was warmer in the past and the absence of glaciation at particular times during the Holocene is evidence of that. Denying science is the only way to oppose that assertion.

Absent the use of fossil fuels, we cannot grow our crops or transport or prepare or store the food in areas where the people live. You can't stop using fossil fuels without scrapping our civilization.

Your news flash is empty- one might even call it "Fake News". . The chart showed that temps have been higher during the Holocene and that the holocene is a relatively cool interglacial compared to others over the last half million years.

Not liking reality and denying reality are different things. It's the difference between neurosis and psychosis. Either way, it's not helpful to the person who is trying to grasp reality.

The reality is that the globe has been much much warmer for prolonged periods when CO2 concentrations were much, much lower.

Given this FACT, asserting that the rise in the concentration of CO2 can be the only cause of our current warming, ignoring the other 50 or so natural climate influencers, is just silly.

People who do so are obviously spreading propaganda to support a political agenda and not dealing in reality.

The reality is that we are recovering from the coldest point of the Holocene in about 10,000 years AND that the coldest point happens to be the point at which the "Instrument Record" started.

Further, it's seems to be very likely that volcanic activity created a quasi-nuclear winter to cause that cold point. Ignoring that obvious, demonstrable CAUSE is ignoring actual, real world, science.

Arguing that Man can both control and direct the climate of our planet as you are doing is silly. As a race we find great difficulty trying to control and direct the actions of our children.

In truth, as individuals, we have great difficulty trying to control and direct our own individual actions. Those among us who demonstrate strong self control are revered because the rest of us have failed in so many attempts.

code1211 said:

However, I don't think I ever asserted the claims that you attribute to me regarding the orbit of the Sun or health impacts of cigarettes. Were you thinking of a different poster?

Click to expand...

:roll:

Read my post. I said that you are in the SAME POSITION AS flat earther, or someone who denies that cigarettes are carcinogenic -- vainly disputing obvious scientific facts due to your own biases and ideological purposes. In fact, not only are the tactics of the deniers very similar to that of the tobacco companies, there is even some overlap in the individuals involved in both efforts. (https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942)

By the way, you repeatedly ignored multiple comments or merely repeated well-refuted denier BS. I'm tired of that nonsense, so I'm done replying to most of what you're now writing.

The chart showed that temps have been higher during the Holocene and that the holocene is a relatively cool interglacial compared to others over the last half million years.

Click to expand...

...and again, that chart sucks for drawing conclusions about the past 200 years.

To start with, it's Vostok ice core data from 1999. IIRC the resolution for this single measure is around 30 years. Actual climate scientists use it in conjunction with other proxies. So it's good data... when used properly, and preferably in conjunction with other proxies and/or the instrumental record.

For example: When we look at the actual data, we see that between 149 and 129 years before 1999, temperatures jumped 0.81C; and Vostok shows no temperature changes since then. Obviously that isn't a good measure of what has actually happened either between 1850 and 1870, or since 1870. I.e. Vostok data is great for broad conclusions over thousands of years, but not optimal for figuring out how much global temperatures rose specifically during the 20th Century.

By the way, the source of that graph is from a 1999 paper, which concluded that "There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 (refs 5, 9). This discovery suggests that greenhouse gases are important as amplifiers of the initial orbital forcing and may have significantly contributed to the glacial–interglacial changes. The Vostok ice cores were also used to infer an empirical estimate of the sensitivity of global climate to future anthropogenic increases of greenhouse gas concentrations." Sound familiar? It should, since I've been telling you that for days. And here's why they wrote that:



Yep, that's right. For the past 400k years, there has been a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. We can see how temperature increases often lag CO2 increases, and CO2 drops lag temperature drops. What could that possibly indicate?!? I can't even imagine no wait, it's obvious that there is a connection. And since we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas via other empirical means, we can surmise that increases in CO2 mean increases in global temperatures. What a ****in' concept.

The reality is that we are recovering from the coldest point of the Holocene in about 10,000 years AND that the coldest point happens to be the point at which the "Instrument Record" started.

Click to expand...

:roll:

No, we're not. Even your own sources don't justify that claim. Here's Vostok for the Holocene:



Overall, temperatures have been fairly stable during the Holocene. On average, temperatures have gone up and down by relatively small amounts during that time. And again, since this is Vostok, it isn't great at showing the effects of the Industrial Age. That's why, when we combine proxy and instrumental data, it looks like this:



Sorry Charlie, but the scientific evidence, data and analysis is all solid, and has been for years. Human activity is the primary cause of warming since around 1750. What we're seeing is not normal and it's not natural, and it's not going to stop unless we get smart and make a few relatively minor adjustments to our lifestyles that will be far less painful than the results of doing nothing. The only propagandist here are you, and your fellow WUWT citers.

Lord of Planar said:

A smart person must ask. What incentive do all these organizations get to participate in blind activism?

Click to expand...

Job security....
I heard an engineer at a govt. owned contractor run facility say something like this..."We have tested above and beyond the initial scope of this project and if can't come up with some new reason to test from another angle, we will soon be scrambling for jobs".

Justify your jobs, boys and girls, the end of the govt. gravy train is nigh.

Visbek said:

:roll:

Read my post. I said that you are in the SAME POSITION AS flat earther, or someone who denies that cigarettes are carcinogenic -- vainly disputing obvious scientific facts due to your own biases and ideological purposes. In fact, not only are the tactics of the deniers very similar to that of the tobacco companies, there is even some overlap in the individuals involved in both efforts. (https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942)

By the way, you repeatedly ignored multiple comments or merely repeated well-refuted denier BS. I'm tired of that nonsense, so I'm done replying to most of what you're now writing.



...and again, that chart sucks for drawing conclusions about the past 200 years.

To start with, it's Vostok ice core data from 1999. IIRC the resolution for this single measure is around 30 years. Actual climate scientists use it in conjunction with other proxies. So it's good data... when used properly, and preferably in conjunction with other proxies and/or the instrumental record.

For example: When we look at the actual data, we see that between 149 and 129 years before 1999, temperatures jumped 0.81C; and Vostok shows no temperature changes since then. Obviously that isn't a good measure of what has actually happened either between 1850 and 1870, or since 1870. I.e. Vostok data is great for broad conclusions over thousands of years, but not optimal for figuring out how much global temperatures rose specifically during the 20th Century.


View attachment 67262993

Yep, that's right. For the past 400k years, there has been a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. We can see how temperature increases often lag CO2 increases, and CO2 drops lag temperature drops. What could that possibly indicate?!? I can't even imagine no wait, it's obvious that there is a connection. And since we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas via other empirical means, we can surmise that increases in CO2 mean increases in global temperatures. What a ****in' concept.



:roll:

No, we're not. Even your own sources don't justify that claim. Here's Vostok for the Holocene:

View attachment 67262987

Overall, temperatures have been fairly stable during the Holocene. On average, temperatures have gone up and down by relatively small amounts during that time. And again, since this is Vostok, it isn't great at showing the effects of the Industrial Age. That's why, when we combine proxy and instrumental data, it looks like this:

View attachment 67262994

Sorry Charlie, but the scientific evidence, data and analysis is all solid, and has been for years. Human activity is the primary cause of warming since around 1750. What we're seeing is not normal and it's not natural, and it's not going to stop unless we get smart and make a few relatively minor adjustments to our lifestyles that will be far less painful than the results of doing nothing. The only propagandist here are you, and your fellow WUWT citers.

Click to expand...

(Edited for length)

All of that is wonderful.

Why are the glaciers that are melting today less than 7000 years old?

The simple empirical facts show that the globe is not as warm right now as it was 7000 years ago.

It also shows that the globe 7000 years ago had cooled for 1000 years before that.

Out of curiosity, what caused the outgassing of the CO2 that you seem so certain occurred BEFORE the rise of temperature?

What causes sequestration of CO2 to occur in permafrost areas? What causes warming to occur resulting outgassing of CO2?

National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)

National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They're Growing) - The Lid

Otzi - Wikipedia


Ötzi the Iceman while still frozen in the glacier, photographed by Helmut Simon upon the discovery of the body in September 1991

code1211 said:

Why are the glaciers that are melting today less than 7000 years old?

Click to expand...

I've already explained this. Learn to read.

Out of curiosity, what caused the outgassing of the CO2 that you seem so certain occurred BEFORE the rise of temperature? What causes warming to occur resulting outgassing of CO2? etc

Click to expand...

Do you really think climate scientists have never thought about this? Seriously?

As already partly discussed: Changes in orbital and/or solar activity kick off a small amount of warming; thus, we often see a small and relatively short temperature rise before GHG levels rise. Once those feedbacks are locked in, GHGs are released from previously sequestered areas (permafrost, oceans etc) and other changes likely take place (e.g. albedo) which amplify the effects of that warming.

After thousands of years, those orbital and/or solar changes fade or reverse. If the changes last long enough, then the feedbacks fall off -- or can amplify the cooling. E.g. once it gets cold enough, permafrost will start to sequester rather than release GHGs. This in turn can cause more cooling.

Obviously this is an incredibly oversimplified explanation -- this is merely a web forum, after all. If you really want to know, maybe start with a relatively non-technical summary, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Ice-Age-Shor...eywords=ice+age&qid=1567620357&s=books&sr=1-8

National Parks Quietly Toss Signs Saying Glaciers ‘Will Be Gone’ By 2020 (They’re Growing)

Click to expand...

They aren't growing. They are shrinking. I've already given you links to the empirical evidence, gathered by NASA, which shows glacier retreat around the globe, as well as evidence that glaciers specifically in GNP have retreated significantly during the Industrial Era.

That is not disproven by the parks changing their signs, no matter what your denier websites and blogs tell you.

I mean, really. Lidblog?!? Are you really that desperate? Actually, don't bother, I already know your answer.

Visbek said:

I've already explained this. Learn to read.



Do you really think climate scientists have never thought about this? Seriously?

As already partly discussed: Changes in orbital and/or solar activity kick off a small amount of warming; thus, we often see a small and relatively short temperature rise before GHG levels rise. Once those feedbacks are locked in, GHGs are released from previously sequestered areas (permafrost, oceans etc) and other changes likely take place (e.g. albedo) which amplify the effects of that warming.

After thousands of years, those orbital and/or solar changes fade or reverse. If the changes last long enough, then the feedbacks fall off -- or can amplify the cooling. E.g. once it gets cold enough, permafrost will start to sequester rather than release GHGs. This in turn can cause more cooling.

Obviously this is an incredibly oversimplified explanation -- this is merely a web forum, after all. If you really want to know, maybe start with a relatively non-technical summary, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Ice-Age-Shor...eywords=ice+age&qid=1567620357&s=books&sr=1-8



They aren't growing. They are shrinking. I've already given you links to the empirical evidence, gathered by NASA, which shows glacier retreat around the globe, as well as evidence that glaciers specifically in GNP have retreated significantly during the Industrial Era.

That is not disproven by the parks changing their signs, no matter what your denier websites and blogs tell you.

I mean, really. Lidblog?!? Are you really that desperate? Actually, don't bother, I already know your answer.

Click to expand...

The point that I am making that you are ignoring is this:

The warming effect of the globe has occurred in the past absent the cause of man.

Since this has happened before, has happened more dramatically and has reversed with no unusual acts by man, it seems logical to assume that this current example is natural, temporary and will reverse again.

You ignore the FACT that the glaciers disappearing today formed after the warmest point of the Holocene.

You ignore the FACT that the instrument record starts at the coldest point in the last 10,000 or so years.

You ignore the FACT that every interglacial in the last half million years was warmer than the holocene.

You ignore the FACT that every previous interglacial over the last half million years ended when CO2 concentration was at its peak for that interglacial. AFTER the cooling occurred, CO2 sequestration also occurred.

You ignore the FACT that the signs removed from GNP were composed by the Park Service and removed by the Park Service. What actually happened in the real world is not affected by who reported the occurrence.

The other 50 or so influencers of climate also have feed back loops and also interact with all of the other influencers. One of those influencers is the Sun.

Climate change is occurring. Climate change will continue. Until the Sun dies, climate change always will continue.

Your assertion is that man can both control and direct the climate of the planet.

This is patently absurd.

code1211 said:

The point that I am making that you are ignoring is this....

Click to expand...

Your entire post is full of bull**** and lies that I've already responded to, by citing actual scientific claims, most of which at this point are no longer subject to any rational debate.

Your inability to read my posts is not my fault, and not my problem.

'Bye Felicia.