Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

Just more irrelevant guff and bluff.

 

Just more irrelevant guff and bluff.

 

Your cite:

What’s happening with temperature extremes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00404-x

Since overall magnitude of temperature extremes decreased during the study you presented, it’s no surprise tweeting about temperature extremes decreased. People just tweeted based on reality. Less temperature extremes, less tweets about temperature extremes. Simple stuff until journalists start spinning.

At least the guy pointed out the boiling frog idea is science denial. That’s something I guess. Most people believe all frogs, toads, snakes and lizards should be extinct now based on the boiling frog false premise.

 

https://wordhistories.net/2020/06/25/blind-freddy/

 

No. When Chevron gets overturned next month, it'll be the "climate change" lunatics who will be foraging for work.

Good luck.

 

Since climate change is increasing agricultural production potential globally, the idea of having to be a hunter gather is a false premise anyway.

 

That's your issue, not mine.

 

Got to admit, that's a novel approach. I guess if you really don't know what you're talking about, nothing is your issue.

But you go be you.

 

That's unlikely. It's true that increased atmospheric CO2 is broadly beneficial to humanity, and reducing it will reduce agricultural yields and make water-constrained ecosystems more vulnerable to drought, in addition to the damage done by depriving (especially poor) people of access to cheap, safe, reliable, convenient fossil fuels. However, the anti-CO2 narrative is about obtaining and wielding unaccountable political and financial power, nothing so melodramatic as destroying humanity.

 

I was working in DC when Massachusetts v. EPA was decided. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) put out a paper on that decision (they're a resource for all of Congress and steadfastly remain non-partisan in all their work).

The first line explained CO2 production in this country thusly-

CO2 production = population x GDP (as a proxy for economic activity)

So if you want to reduce CO2 production, which of the 2 factors do you cut?

I think that's quite accurate and much of the hidden (purposefully) political drivers behind the "climate change" fanaticism.

 

I doubt very much that temperature has increased more than ~0.5C since the early 1940s: arctic sea ice extent was about the same then as it is now. The temperature records that claim to show substantial heating in recent decades all commit one or more of the following errors:
1. Accepting surface temperature data that are heavily contaminated by local effects like urban heating, land use changes, increased use of heated buildings, heat-producing machinery and outdoor lighting in rural areas, etc. Such data do not reflect the actual global temperature trend away from human activities.
2. Starting around the end of the ~1945-75 cooling trend, as satellite-based data do, or the end of the Little Ice age, as legacy surface instrument data do.
3. Outright retroactive alteration of temperature data to conform to the CO2 climate narrative.

Once those factors are removed, very little is left of the purported skyrocketing temperatures, as proved by the fact that arctic sea ice extent is about the same as it was 80 years ago, despite "polar amplification."

 

It's true that there is a lot of anti-consumerism in anti-fossil-fuel woke ideology, which translates to anti-growth and anti-GDP sentiment. That doesn't mean they are out to destroy humanity.

 

There's a lot of "population control" ideology, too. And pro-abortion fanaticism. And a lot of environmentalist fanaticism.

And most of the major players are already wealthy enough to survive what poorer folks can't.

What was the famous Scrooge line? "Well then they'd better get on with it (dying that is) and decrease the surplus population."

I can't be certain, but then by the time I can be, it'll be too late.

 

It's still your issue not mine if you want to overturn the Chevron Hotel.

 

Agreed. That warming might be even less than 0.006C

That warming from the Stefan-Boltzmann law is probably an overestimation too. The idea that a given radiative imbalance will automatically produce a corresponding increase in the mean global temperature is a fallacy because it takes no accout of the way and the extent to which the increased downward radiation is absorbed and ignores things like evapotranspiration. The IPCC say that the total downward back-radiation from all greenhouse gases combined is 333 W/m2 and the greenhouse is claimed to increase the surface temperature by 33C. As NASA says: "Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable. Without them, Earth’s surface temperature would be about 59 degrees Fahrenheit (33 degrees Celsius) colder". The paper in question that found a forcing of 0.5 W/m2 over 15 years would therefore only contribute 0.15% to the total greenhouse of 333 W/m2 (i.e. 0.5/333) or 0.15% of 33C which equals 0.05C. A temperature rise of 0.05C over a 15 year-period blamed on greenhouse gases? And the world is being turned on its head for this?

 

Below is a graph from Trenberth and the IPCC showing the 333 W/m2 of radiation absorbed by the surface from all greenhouse gases combined (take it as fiction or fact):

 

All true. You can sometimes even hear the "humans are a virus" or "humans are a cancer on the earth" crap from the extreme greens. It's very unhealthy psychologically, but it's not the same as wanting to destroy humanity.

 

The correlation coefficient between CO2 and subsequent temperature in the paleoclimate record indicates an ECS of ~0.1C. I.e., doubling CO2 would increase temperature by about 0.1C.

Right. More importantly, it ignores the fact that although added CO2 significantly changes the radiative heat transfer regime above the altitude where almost all water vapor condenses out (also at high latitude in winter), that change has minimal effect on global climate because there is so much water vapor between those water-depleted altitudes and the surface, and because so little sunlight is absorbed by the surface at high latitudes in winter because the angle of the sun is so low and the surface is covered with highly reflective snow and ice.

Another fact they always evade: while it's true that without any CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth would be a frozen iceball, almost all of CO2's greenhouse effect is already in place at an atmospheric concentration of just 1ppm, which is enough to ensure 100% absorption of all surface infrared emissions in CO2's IR absorption spectrum. Increases above that have a logarithmically declining effect, like adding more blankets on a bed that already has 20 blankets on it. The earth has never had an atmospheric CO2 concentration of less than ~150ppm, and the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate record is because higher temperatures cause the oceans to release dissolved CO2. There is 50x as much CO2 in the oceans as in the atmosphere.

 

The lower the ECS then the more it makes sense to me. CO2 just doesn’t warm the planet like alarmists claim it does. They use computer model codes like HITRAN and MODTRAN which are uncheckable. I assumed that paleo-climate data was the holy grail for high ECS for alarmists, since most of the high ECS estimates come from paleo-climate data, over 3C. I am not arguing for any specific paleo-climate sensitivity since just about every aspect of paleo-climate reconstruction seems extremely conjectural and uncertain to me. We know next to nothing about what the Sun was doing at these times and we also know very little too about how the whole climate system was constituted then either.

Agreed. According to the IPCC’s own radiative forcing equations for CO2 (see on Wikipedia here) the first 20ppmv of CO2 does 16.5 W/m2, but by the time the concentration is at 400ppmv (the current concentration) then an increment of 20ppmv will only produce a forcing of 0.25 W/m2. This is on the basis of their own formula. But I suspect they have exaggerated the warming from CO2 in the first place anyway. The most authentic estimations of the warming from CO2 I believe comes from Hottel and Leckner who showed that CO2 in a saturated state (in thousands of ppmv) has an absorptivity/emissivity of 0.003 which if you do the calcualtions would only result in a warming at the surface of 0.45 W/m2. Nasif Nahle has a great paper here that goes through the math. His result for warming is different to mine since he used different tempertaures.

 

Oh, not only from them. I have stated things that are similar myself to them quite clearly.

Now I do believe that humans are having a small impact on global temperatures. But it is very small and fractional, not the huge amounts the fear mongers are trying to claim. And that impact is tied almost directly to the human population. Because ultimately, the huge spike in CO2 production can be tied almost directly to the increase in the human population.

If somebody really cares about CO2 numbers, there is ultimately only a single way to reduce them. And that is to reduce the human population. And I am not talking about some fractional amount like so many claim, we would need a real population crash to have any impact. Like say a global pandemic that wiped out 25% of the population, that would ne a good start.

But the idea that we can reduce CO2 output with a growing global population is absolute insanity. And it is absolutely impossible, just as it would be to have decreasing water use or food consumption as population increases. Because more than anything else, CO2 is ultimately tied to human population numbers. Want to reduce CO2 production to 1900 levels? Then you had better find a way to reduce human population to 1900 levels.

And that population was around 1.6 million. So the true believers had better get started, they need to find a way to cull out about 80% of the population to reach that goal. Drop the population by that much, the CO2 will drop if their claims are correct.

Now I am not one to propose actually doing that, but I also believe that a population crash is in our future. It is inevitable, and we are now seeing problems with the almost century long upward spike as we have eliminated almost everything that used to kill us humans in the past. The only two major factors left are war and viral pandemics. A few years ago we had a scare from one of them, but it largely turned out to be a dud and even during that pandemic population numbers rose.

But nature has three ways to balance populations that exceed what the environment can provide for. Increased predation, starvation, or disease. The first is no longer a real threat to humans, other than predation from each other. The second will always be an issue, but with modern logistics we can send food to where it does not grow in sufficient quantities. Which leaves the last. And I had been warning for over a decade prior to COVID that a global pandemic was due. And most said I was mad and it would never happen because modern medicine would stop it cold.

Well, I am still predicting that. And eventually, it will be one with a mortality rate significantly higher than COVID. Disease more than anything else is what has kept human population in check the last 1,000 years. And with the ever increasing population densities, it is only a matter of time before a "Captain Trips" does a real number on us.

 

That's because they are using the plain correlation coefficient, and not separating the leading and trailing components. That leads to switching cause and effect. The 3C ECS estimate also relies on wildly exaggerated positive water vapor feedback, which has no basis in (is indeed refuted by) the paleoclimate data.

Right, because they don't account for the fact that the forcing is attenuated by water vapor below the altitude where it condenses out, and at high latitude in winter the "greenhouse" effect is nullified by the low angle of the sun and the reflectivity of ice and snow on the surface.

 

That's not because humans produce a lot of CO2, but because use of fossil fuels has enabled an enormous increase in population. Be careful not to reverse cause and effect.

No, the link with population is an artifact of the state of our technology, which relies on fossil fuels. More advanced energy production techniques will make fossil fuels as obsolete as whale oil.

No. Unlike food and water, we don't actually need fossil fuels. What we need is energy. Replacing fossil fuel energy sources with nuclear, solar, etc. will reduce CO2 emissions. The solar technology just isn't good enough yet, and the nuclear has been blocked politically.

Refuted above. CO2 is tied to fossil fuel use, not human population. Human population grew by several orders of magnitude in the 100Ky before 1800, and CO2 was effectively unchanged.

I suspect the real threat is bioweapons, especially in the hands of terrorists. Modern genetic technology is cheap, incredibly powerful, and widely available, and it is only a matter of time before someone concocts something truly deadly.

 

It goes both ways. And not just fossil fuels. We need more land to produce an ever increasing amount of food. And in more primitive agricultural societies, that means slash and burn agriculture. Which is even worse as that not only releases huge amounts of CO2, it also removes the very thing that evolved to help regulate the CO2 in the atmosphere. So they both release huge amounts of CO2 sequestered in the trees, they put in place plants that are not very efficient in sequestering CO2 then leave when all the nutrients in the soil are exhausted so no new trees can grow to replace them when they move on.

And of course fossil fuels in order to grow the ever increasing amount of food the population needs, in addition to moving the water they need vast distances. As in a great many cases, those population centers are in places they should never exist in the first place.

The fossil fuels drive the population growth, the population growth drives more fossil fuel use. It is a classic case of a feedback loop, but ultimately it is the growth that drives it.

And most of the claims they use to "reduce CO2" is simply ineffective. Solar cells, great. Until one realizes the amount of CO2 produced in order to extract the raw materials then manufacture them is no different than if we had just used natural gas in the first place. The same with electric cars, it is just adding in more steps and ultimately simply converting cars to LNG would likely be more efficient and take less raw materials.

Remember, I do not see increased CO2 is a problem, and believe that the effect is fractional compared to what most of the alarmists claim. And that our planet should be hotter, the current period of cold is the aberration and not the norm when it comes to our planet.

However, do not worry about bioweapons. First of all, they are largely a "red herring". Largely they do not exist, and they all have the same problem that makes them not much of a threat for causing a population crash. Mostly, in that they use bacteria and virus that are simply too damned efficient. There are several things you need to be an "efficient biological killer".

Diseases tend to kill one of two ways. One is like ebola, which has a roughly 99% fatality rate. But that disease sets in so damned fast that it never spreads very far. Very quickly after being infected an individual passes into overt symptoms, then death. When there is an outbreak it tends to burn through a small area very quickly. High death rates, but in a fairly confined area.

The other is more like Spanish Flu or COVID. Now neither one of those is actually particularly fatal, the death tolls come from the huge numbers infected as those virus spread damned easily. And we really dodged a bullet this time, as COVID was nowhere near as fatal as Spanish Flu. That disease killed around 50 million globally, with a global population of under 2 billion. That means that if COVID was as efficient of a killer, we should have had well over 200 million dead. Not the roughly 7 million we actually had. "Modern medicine" really had very little to do with our dodging the bullet here, it really was just not as effective of a killer as the virus we had a century earlier.

In order to have a bioweapon to have any effect, it would have to be some kind of miracle weapon that simply does not exist. One that is a virus, that can spread quickly and easily. And at the same time linger in the body for a long period of time before actively working to kill the host. One of the closest like that I can think of is actually HIV. Which actually had been in Europe since the late 1950s, but took decades until it started to kill enough people to finally be noticed by scientists.

Now say if there was a hybrid which is not possible, that is an HIV that was spread by casual contact that indeed would be a virus that could put paid to much of the human race and reset us back to 1800s era population numbers after a couple of decades. Or an ebola with an insanely long incubation time, where it sat dormant for a year or more before going active. But that is simply not how virus work, the most effective tend to be either fairly mild but spread fast, or highly deadly and burn themselves out just as quickly.

Of course, that is also in the modern age. Most of the past biological scourges were actually not virus but bacteria. And spread more often than not by a vector and not person to person. Most of the major plagues in China and Europe were bacteriological diseases spread by insects. Like fleas and Yersinia Pestis. Better vector control and antibiotics have pretty much eliminated such threats.

 

And do not think I am some kind of "nihilist", I actually am not. I am however simply looking at things very dispassionately and without injecting any of my own personal beliefs into them.

Humans have existed on this planet for millions of years. And until the last 2 centuries, made barely a dent on the planet as a species. Our agriculture, the raw resources we extracted and exploited had relatively minimal impact on the planet. Oh, they might have large impacts in a local area (say the hydro mining and clear cutting in California), but globally that was no more impactful than a pimple on a person. And in the modern era, we could do hydro mining and clear cutting and be far less impactful than we were a century ago. Because now we are aware of the damage that can be done, and how to mitigate that so it does not leave behind the devastation that it had in the past.

However, I also recognize that the human population will continue to grow. Hell, in my lifetime it has gone from 3.2 billion to over 8 billion. And shows no significant rate of change in the future. By 2037 we will reach 9 billion people, by 2055 we will reach 10 billion people at current trends. And with those people, more CO2. Not just directly from "fossil fuels", but from our agriculture, our need for raw resources, and our expansion for housing and the like which will push more and more into uninhabited areas and replace nature which sequesters CO2 and replacing it with concrete and asphalt which effectively sequesters none.

And there is not a damned thing that can be done to stop it. Short of a global thermonuclear war or some kind of pandemic which puts paid to half or more of the human population of the planet. Nobody should make the mistake that I believe such will happen or that I wish it should happen. It is simply my realizing a fact, and nothing can change the outcome of that. Which is why I see most of those screaming for silliness like gravity batteries and elimination of fossil fuels as little more than plague dancers.

 

Sorry, but your post is mere gaslighting. The group in the article has nothing to do with anything.