Global warming and causality.

There being 'a cause' is also an assumption. More likely there are a number of causes. Solar cycles and electromagnetic shifts from both the sun and earth's own geology being two of the primary ones. Sure, also emissions from carbon-based life forms such as humans and our industry plays some role. The question is- how much?

The other question is- are we really worse off if global temperatures rise? How much arable land will be flooded or droughted vs how much frozen land will become arable? The earth has been ice free many times in the history of life, so its really just a matter of how much adaptation is required for us to thrive in a warmer environment. Reducing carbon emissions is an adaption as well, so the question is- which one causes more hardship? Fossil fuels will be useful in powering the irrigation of droughted regions, both those we might create by using said fuels and those that existed long before as well.

 

And they would be?
Seems we are back to magic fairy dust

 

Again do you think scientists are so dumb they would miss something as obvious as the sun?

 

Well the one that created this thread failed to mention it... though I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was due to a lack of intelligence.

 

Because he/she like me is probably sick and tired of the excuses along the lines of “the climate is changing because it does”. I have tried this tactic before - trying to get people to tell me what is driving THIS observed change and they can’t.

 

NASA, NOAA and UAH are partners in the UAH temperature series. Do you consider NASA and NOAA to be contrarians? And as I noted previously, the UAH data are only "problematic" to those for whom they pose a political problem. NASA and NOAA find the data very much worth paying for.

 

You didnt ask that question in this conversation. And Im not the one making declarations of fact as to what has or has not caused the change. Those of you making such declarations need to answer the question what causes the changes. Im the one pointing out that these changes from warmer, ice free temperatures to massive ice sheets covering much of the earth, have been going on for millions of years and there is nothing to indicate that it should not continue.

 

Actually you have been making “declarations” and no one is denying that these have been factors in the past (and PS you missed a few) the question as posed by the OP is to show which of those factors is affecting the current climate

 

Not sure how you intended this post- whether you're a climate change worshipper, denier, or just curious- but I'll assume you're looking towards what deniers think since that tends to be grossly under represented in the public debate. Since you didn't indicate what kind of scientist you are, I'll lead with a similar warning: I'm an engineer. An automotive engineer. And to be very specific, an automotive powertrain (engine and transmission) engineer with a specialty in control systems- specifically emissions control sytems (catalytic convertors, diesel particulate filters, selective catalytic reduction, etc.). In addition, I've got fairly decent experience with regulation both on the industry side and as a Federal regulator.

Now in automotive the eco warriors have been pushing increased fuel economy by government fiat since the mid-70s (what are known as CAFE standards). They haven't been very effective at doing much at all in that time largely due to the relatively soft frameworlk that Congress created for DOT who administers them.

Now EPA, who has regulated actual pollutants (CO2 isn't a real pollutant and hence EPA has never had authority to regulate it until 2007 since 1972 has a completely different, and more draconian, regulatory structure from Congress. Thus, the goal of the enviros has long been to figure out a way to get EPA in the business of regulating fuel economy (CO2 per mile is the direct mathematical inverse of miles per gallon). That happened with 2007's logical abortion of a Supreme Court decision in EPA v. Massachutsetts which basically declared CO2 a pollutant by virtue of judicial fiat. Since then it's been a constant struugle in government to try to impose ridiculously high miles per gallon standards (they always refer to miles per gallon because it's friendlier and more familiar than CO2 per mile) pushing electric vehicles (which don't burn fuel) as the only available technical solution (tricky, ain't it?).

In the meantime the delusion of climate change needs to be constantly maintained in order to bolster enviros fascist political proclivities. Now here's the summary of the scientific case against the climate change panic. The truth is, as most people probably covered in junior high school science class, the earth's atmosphere is roughly 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. CO2 exists in the space between those 2 numbers- currently roughly 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere. Other "greenhouse gases" tend to only exist in similar microscopic concentrations. Automotive exhaust when combustion is perfect (it's rarely exactly perfect due to the dynamics of rapidly changing cylinder volumes, pressures, and temperatures. Still actual pollutants are surprisingly minimal, a couple hundreths of a percent maybe direct engine out pre-exhaust aftertreatment) is something like 1/3 CO2, 1/3 water, and the other third nitrogen. Period. All day, every day. Yet the global warming/cooling/climate change nuts are relentless. Somehow CO2 and CO2 equivalents drive the tempeatures of the other 100% of the atmosphere ever warmer. Or is it colder? I can't keep up any more.

That's the basic scientific (physics based) argument against climate change. It's a glorified myth that can't actually be true.

The only thing the climate nuts have is model-based projections and a panic-stricken tone of voice. And any engineer worth his salt knows the value of model-based projections. Basically, the more degrees of freedom involved in the model, the more false results spring up. And modelling something as complex as the earth's climate has a virtually infinite number of degrees of freedom.

I've followed the legal swindle at the core of it since 2008 and last year's WV v. EPA decision has laid the ground work for the destruction of EPAs ability to regulate CO2 so climate change as an important issue is hearing the death knell in the distance and it's about time.

And P.S.- the current fuel economy scheme only applies to light duty vehicles which are regulated as a whole vehicle. Congress in 2009 also authorized similar fuel economy standards for medium and heavy duty vehicles. So far niether DOT nor EPA have even begun to promulgate them. That's because those vehicles are not regulated for pollutants as a vehicle. The standards only apply strictly to engines. Rock, meet hard place.

 

http://euanmearns.com/surface-versus-satellite-the-temperature-data-set-controversy/

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/3071/the-raw-truth-on-global-temperature-records/

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.1756
https://skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...te-data-set-is-underestimating-global-warming

 

K, but its not an 'excuse' to say we don't know how much of the observed change is from us and how much is from other factors like the sun or our geology (or factors we havn't considered yet). Like it or not, there's still limits to what we're able to measure, calculate and project.

 

Oh! Rubbish! I hear this all the time from people who have not taken the time and effort to read even the summary reports from the IPCC. If you looked at the sheer amount of research that has been done……

 

I've read some of it, I'm just not convinced that an institution of the UN tasked with investigating climate change can do so honestly while other branches of the UN profit from, as one example, brokering carbon offsets ...profits that increase dramatically if/when 'findings' lead to regulatory policy that compulses the offsets. I'm not interested in funding-driven science, as its not really science at all (except for the science of how to get more funding, I guess).

 

No, its the passage of time. Just as the passage of time has repeatedly melted the glaciers in the past. No fairy dust now and none 1600 years ago.

Torus is the one who is making proclamations as to the present, that none of the current global warming is due to the same cycle. IF ANY PORTION of the current warming is "part of a cycle" that has repeatedly melted the glaciers in the past, the statement that "the present global warming is part of a cycle" is a fact. Torus assertion that it is NOT, is only true if ZERO% of the current warming is due to the cycle. He has no evidence that this cycle that has repeated for millions of years has some how stopped in the present.

 

And have you looked into the process they undergo to generate those reports or have you simply put them in the box labelled “conspiracy theory”

BTW please link to the “branches of the UN profiting from carbon offsets” and show how they are somehow gleaning MORE money than companies like Exxon

 

No what we are asking is that you demonstrate that either some agency like the sun is causing the warming. See climate, like your underpants does not change by itself - there has to be an outside factor causing the change

 

Why? You think I'm an Exxon supporter or something? Exxon is looking to break into the carbon offset industry too. Undoubtedly once they do, they'll be pumping out climate change fear propaganda and bribing politicians to pass legislation that forces their competitors to buy their offsets, while they keep selling fossil fuels of course. There's really no difference between corrupt government and corrupt corporations. They all do the same crap for the same reasons, scratching eachothers backs while pretending to be in opposition. Before you know it, you'll be buying exxons fuel and paying tax on it for the govt to tell you you have to buy exxon's carbon offsets to offset the fuel you bought so exxon can keep lining the govts pockets with more tax and offset money (and bribes, of course). The rich get richer off of you by making sure the govt gets richer off of you too.

 

okay - back on ignore

 

its really not hard to figure out...

Exxon CEO Eyes Money-Making Potential of Low-Carbon World - Bloomberg

"Exxon Mobil Corp. sees money-making opportunities in carbon offsets and partnerships with venture funds to finance carbon capture, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said in a Bloomberg TV interview on Thursday."...

 

I ask again: if there is a cycle of global warming, what's the cause?

Regards, stay safe 'n warm.

Hi, dixon76710.

Thank you for taking time to post an extensive response.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Yes, the passage of time and the sun cause the planet to heat

 

It was TWO sentences, not very extensive and the 2nd sentence was a question you didnt answer, yet you felt the need to quote and respond to.

 

I'm assuming he confused you with me.

 

Nonetheless, NOAA and NASA continue to fund the UAH temperature program, sponsor its use of their satellites, and incorporate UAH data in their work. What you have showcased are a few attempts to politicize differences among datasets.

 

He quoted my two sentence post in his post where he responded. Although he did also quote yours in the same post.