Climate change: We haven't experienced anything like this in the past 2,000 yearsClimate scientists

First, I appreciate the effort & energy you put into your post, & I agree with much of your thinking regarding science & politics. I also agree there are many unknowns connected with the global warming issue, but yesterday I watched part of a long, well done documentary on climate change that I found quite disturbing. A climatologist who had made an in-depth study of one of your cyclical climate change events that occurred (if memory is correct) about 120 million years ago. His study found that that particular event took about 40,000 years for an equal level of change to what is currently taking 100 years. He ascribed the difference in pace to the impact of Man on the planet. For some reason, many non-scientists have difficult time accepting the level of impact by Man on this Earth, but as a geographer, I don't. I see evidence for that impact all around me. Every city or town. . .every man-made reservoir. . .every large agricultural region. . .even man-made smog, are all evidence of that impact. For me, the best illustration of that impact is watching videos of Earth from the International Space Station as it passes over all the continents at night, showing all the lights by Man. Every light--& there are many millions of them--mark a place on Earth that is surrounded by a large region of man-made features which have completely altered or replaced natural ones that existed previously. Every light marks a place where the presence of Man has eliminated the presence of most other life forms or species, except in some cases, those least desirable to have around. From space, several continents are totally covered by those lights, leaving one wondering, where Man has left space for anything natural to retain a foothold. Man has become a force surpassing weather &/or geology, in its power to alter the face of our planet. If this power were coupled with a strong commitment to protect the environment which so many plant & animal species depend--including humans--then I would be happy. But that isn't the case. Instead, Man has shown a total disregard for the planet itself & the health & safety of both plant & animal life, including Man himself--& all in the name of unquenchable personal greed. That is a gross example of the worst in the options available, & one doomed to eventually fail. The question before us now, is whether we change it for something better--more in tune with nature & considerate of life itself, or whether we continue on the current path until we ourselves become the victims of our own narrow, self-serving greed. I vote for the former.

 

They're both FAR better than the FOX ULTRA-RIGHT PROPAGANDA STATION, where truth is just a memory.

 

Tell that to all the W European countries who now identify themselves as Democratic Socialist countries.

 

Like most conservatives & Trump supporters, you see what you want to see in what you read, not what it's actually saying.

 

Pot calling kettle black..

 

Then look up the Younger Dryas event where after the beginning of the Holocene is plunged to cold then later warmed an equal amount in a very short period of time, possibly decades. One must look at the differences in measuring to understand that much cannot be known about past swings in temperatures in short periods like now since they are proxies and the further back you go, the worse the uncertainty becomes. Also, with proxies one cannot measure from year to year but often one measurement will be a century or centuries from the other. A lot can go on in-between. The only way one can measure against past proxies are by using the same type of proxy. Trying to measure proxies compared to our short period of temperature measurements by instrument is misleading. That was one of the Hockey Stick complaints that was called 'hide the decline' where the proxies they used started showing cooling while the tacked on temperature record showed warming so they started earlier to hide the proxy cooling.

I would disagree that man as become a force surpassing weather &/or geology. Nothing wrong with protecting the environment but it is hubris to think we are greater than, say, the oceans which hold almost all of the heat content that we see in the atmosphere as the oceans affect the atmosphere and not the other way around. Say the atmosphere, as heat content, is a fly and the ocean is a semi. If they meet, who wins? The oceans, I believe, hold 1000 times more heat content than the atmosphere. What heats the ocean? The sun which penetrates something like 100 meters so the sun has a much larger effect on our atmosphere than anything we can do. What cannot be modeled in the climate models? Clouds are a fairly known unknown. Instead of modeling them they use parameters in something like 100km squares. In other words, the climate models are incapable of modeling the Earth. They model a planet but a fictitious planet in the computer due to limitations in both knowledge and computer power. Right now politics is being advised based on these models and the alarmism is based on the worst case/least likely model RCP8.5.

Another thing, all the hydrocarbons we put in the atmosphere end up in the atmosphere without us but at a slower rate. For instance, during the Gulf oil spill we released a lot of oil that eventually turns into carbon in the atmosphere as it degrades but the Gulf leaks oil into the water all the time naturally. If it is, as is proclaimed, carbon from the past, it is carbon that was taken out of the atmosphere in the first place when CO2 was much greater and the earth warmer back when life was tremendously abundant. There was a scientist named Thomas Gold that correctly predicted the depth of moon dust which was a concern before the moon landings. He was one that also predicted our adding CO2 to the atmosphere is just a bump in the continued leaking of CO2.

 

Interesting retort, but not accurate.

 

Humans don't have to out-co2 nature.

There is a balance going on between solar radiation and heat loss to space.

All humans have to do to have an overriding effect is to modify that balance slightly.

Whether human activity generates a significant percent of the total co2 emissions from all sources isn't the issue.

The issue is whether human activity is changing the balance. And, the majority of scientists say that we are.

 

Actually, it doesn't affect the balance at all. All energy coming in is balanced by the same amount escaping. The hypothesis is that CO2 will multiply the energy balance of the largest greenhouse gas, water vapor which will expand the atmosphere keeping the surface warmer. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis and riddled with so many known unknowns and unknown unknowns that just about any claim can be attributed to climate change because it cannot be falsified. It is one of the reasons, so far, that every alarmist prediction has come and gone without occurring. It has gotten so ridiculous that now, in the media, just about every weather event is attributed to climate change which has no scientific backing.

 

Several papers now suggest that the ability of the very small amount of overall CO2 only produces a fractional outcome, ie 1/100th of a C . All this caterwauling then doesn't seem to be scientifically supported on your part. I understand that the actual science entirely undercuts your narrative, but sometimes, it is really best to keep up.

 

The hypocritical left and their do what i tell you , dont do what i do cuz im special attitude.

 

cite please.

 

What are some examples of ULTRA-RIGHT PROPAGANDA you’ve seen on Fox News in the last week ??? Which shows had this ULTRA-RIGHT PROPAGANDA content ???

 

They are democracies with huge welfare state budgets, matching huge tax rates, matching huge bureaucracies, matching huge regulatory costs, and anemic economic growth rates.

 

There was an entire thread. Though you actively participated on it....

In any event, here is the source citation.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Enjoy.

 

The fundamental assumption that a meaningful global average temperature is very questionable. The only region that has a legitimate proportion of rural (90%) vs. urban measurement locations is the US which shows ~ half the warming rate as the “global average”. Sea surface temperatures are meaningless because they are dependent on the cyclical horizontal and vertical ocean current patterns. The temperature data from the rest of the world is most likely corrupted by urban heat island effects (Barrow Alaska has this problem).

Then this global temperature data is interpreted into 5 X 5 degrees of latitude/ longitude for general circulation climate model verification. What is wrong with this picture?

 

I don't see evidence that this paper was even peer reviewed.

Plus, claims by that author are not accepted for various reasons:
https://climatefeedback.org/claimre...ral-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

You need to look to see what scientists are saying about the stuff you want to believe.

You can't just read some paper and decide it should have more weight than the entire field of science it purports to reject without even bothering to look for review and rebuttal.

 

Peer review means nothing. MBH 98 and 99 were peer reviewed and those papers are garbage.

Your entire field of science is bought and paid for by governments with an AGW agenda to allow the various bureaucracies to grow larger which is what they excel at.

Spencer, Roy W; Spencer, Roy. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World?s Top Climate Scientists (Kindle Locations 1868-1880). Encounter Books. Kindle Edition.

This book is available as an ebook which can be electronically borrowed from the Sacramento CA library.

https://catalog.saclibrary.org/Unio...w=list&searchSource=local&lookfor=Roy+Spencer

 

I can't open the link for some reason. It goes to a Yahoo is working on the problem page.

 

If what you post were true, they'd be economic wrecks--which they're not. They have access to medical care for all citizens. They have a minimum of 6 weeks paid vacation per year for every worker. In many countries, they are guaranteed a minimum income for a period of time, &/or free job training to help get them self-sufficient. None of these are negative ideas. All contribute to the individual happiness of their citizens. The U.S. could learn a lot from them that would benefit Americans.

 

It is true. They also have relatively high unemployment. And all of those policies result in their economies being stagnant as you would know if ....

 

Time will tell. And frankly, when the vast majority of science hasn't, in fact, considered the subject of cloud cover in their models, it just makes them seem basic, and irrelevant. So, time will tell. And when, as I suspect the rest of the scientific community are forced to start taking into account all of the factors, likely, we'll see this estimation borne out. So, put away your attack dogs, and wait, like the rest of us.

 

There are two basic flaws here. First, science certainly does consider clouds.

More importantly, we don't make public policy decisions based on certainty - your "wait and see". For example, our funding of our military, funds for addressing various disasters, etc. are not based on certainty. Instead, we estimate costs and likelihoods. And, we don't just "wait and see".

As Newt Gingrich pointed out, we make public policy when the cost of a disater times the likelihood of the disaster goes high.

 

I would suggest you actually read a methodology or two in the models then. Under account is a serious methodological flaw, that current models exhibit. The study cited simply modifies the assumptions, and produces entirely different results which, frankly, seem entirely more likely than not. As noted, science is going to be forced to start taking this process and method more seriously in other research because it will seem sophomoric if they don't.

Second, we suspend decisions on policy all the time. We fund the military because we, as a nation, feel that our ability to project force is vital, not because we're just waiting around to see. And we rarely use our military to respond to disasters, and most of the time, folks complain that when they do, they aren't using the money allocated to them in the way it was directed. perhaps you can think of a current scenario, I know I can.

So, we, at least in the US, wait and see, all the time. It is prudent to do so.

 

Science isn’t majority rules, it’s “is” and nothing more.