Thank you old guy. I am no atmospheric science expert, so I would have to admit that on the face of it, your arguments seem logical. Have any references however for those claims. And I’d be curious to here what the other side would have to say on your specific arguments. If anybody out there is an expert on this very topic and feels like jumping in, I’m all ears.
that would be hear, not here in the previous post.
One of the methods the warmists use is to repeat their mantra over and over again ad infintum. It’s a propaganda method. They continually make references to “science” but never actually show it because it doesn’t really exist. Then they continally repeat the “97% of scientists agree” theme which has also just been made up and used as a device. You’ve never seen their science because they don’t have it to present. They have theories and speculations which have never been demonstrated to be true and use these speculations to program their models and then present these models as proof.
They created the United Nations IPCC and ensconsed themselves in it so as to be able to present themselves as the qualified authorities on the subject. The scientists who had been working in the area of climate and atmospheric physics and who disagreed with the output of the IPCC were excluded and then defamed and called kooks and deniers even though they were the real experts in the area. Soon Scientists and others who might disagree learned to keep their mouths shut because their jobs, promotion, tenure, funding, or ability to get published depended on it.
At first politicians were cowed into silence but then they realized there was something in it for them. Governments and statists realize that it is a wonderful excuse for raising taxes, growing government, gaining greater control of the economy and other aspects of society. Third world governments and dictatorships love the idea of wealth transfers to them. The big banks were salivating at the idea of carbon credit trading where they would get a skim from every trade, and companies like General Electric stood to make billions manufacturing solar panels and windmill parts. Crony capitalist wannabes sproughted up all over the place hoping to feed at the government trough of subsidies.
Today it is a co-operation between governments, big busines, big finance and ideologues that are pushing the narrative using primarily the owned media and helped along by people that have been conned into believing the story true.
So look for the evidence to support the warmist narrative. Outside of nonsensical climate models you won’t find any. It never existed.
'She does NOT mince words and says things that these Davos people need to hear."
Sharsta, don’t you realize that the Davos people are wholeheartedly behind the warming meme and using it for their purposes. They probably had a hand in bringing this girl in for the optics.
On long-term time scales of multi-million years there is no correlation between CO2 and temp as other strong dynamics overwhelm the relatioship. But on a short term multi-decadal time scale there is a relationship, just not what Al Gore implied in his movie.
Ice core data clearly shows that CO2 lags temperature and Co2 levels are forced by temp. Co2 is constantly being washed out of the atmosphere when it rains and mostly ends up in the oceans. The oceans are the great reservoir of CO2 and constantly outgas it. Warm water holds less CO2 and as oceans warm they outgas more. The amount of CO2 in the air depends on the balance between inflow and outflow determined by the temperature of the water.
Oceans are also the heat reservoirs of the planet as all of the stored solar enegy resides there. Oceans absorb most of the sunlight energy on earth and release it slowly. The amount depends on the solar energy flux over many decades. So as oceans warm they release more CO2 and the amount in the atmosphere increases. As they cool due to lower solar input they release less than is sequestered and atmospheric levels drop.
Temperature forces Co2 flux, not the other way around.
That’s why temperature in the 20th century went up first. Temps in the late 30s to early 40s were just as high as now and probably slightly higher. Most of the modern day high temp records still come from that time period. CO2 didn’t start rising until the 50s when temps were actually falling into the middle 70s before rising again until the end of the century. Temps rose before CO2!
For the last several million years we have alternated between glacial periods when much of North America was covered in ice, sometimes miles high, and interglacial periods such as we are in now. For the last million years the frequencies have been about every 100,000 years with the interglacials such as now lasting 9 to 14 thousand years and the rest of the time10-12C colder and under ice.
The current interglacial is about 11,800 years old. The last four peaked at temperatures higher than this one and there were no SUVs or airplanes around then. They also followed a similar pattern as this one with a quick sharp rise into a peak early into the interglacial and then a slow stairstep down over thousands of years before a steeper drop into the next glacial. The dynamics of why are not understood.
Our interglacial,known as the Holocene, is getting old and since the temperature peak 8,000 years ago has been sliding inexorably down in temp in stairstep fashion since. The slight uptick in recent decades is very mild compared to previous ones and well within natural variability and seems to have stopped in recent years. Current solar activity and predictions of near future solar activity indicate we may be in for another slide down in the near future once ocean system lags have been wrung out.
The next glacial will almost crtainly come relatively soon (not tomorrow) and when it does, modern civilization will not survive it (if we havn’t destroyed ourselves in other ways by then). That’s a real danger.
I can’t seem to be able to paste graghs into the dialogue box which would present things in sharper focus than words. Pity.
Here is a link to an article that explains in more detail what I said in an earlier post.
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/climate-science-on-trial-co2-…
Armstrong has long been predicting a collapse of confidence in government, due to the end of the “public cycle” which peaks in 2020 and crashes, ending in 2032. Might this impending collapse of confidence-in-government be driven by a partial collapse in the planetary ecosystem - and the final realization that our current government is utterly controlled by the top 0.1% in order to harvest both the people and the natural environment?
To Armstrong, cycles are one of these ineluctable things that one cannot change, but must remain acutely aware of if one is to survive (and prosper?) during the times to come. Armstrong also says that Trump is a counter-cyclical move (a “reaction rally”), and that (most likely) our next President (and Administration) will follow the move-towards-collapse.
I interpret this to mean that the gang in charge will double-down on the harvesting, unwinding the few pro-citizen things that Trump has sought to effect. Expect: unlimited immigration, re-expanded globalization, increased joblessness and addiction among the Deplorables, mandatory vaccines or no-school-no-travel-no-welfare benefits, sickcare rising to 30% of GDP, facebook & google in complete control over public discourse, hate-speech laws whose specifics are controlled by corporations, another 3-5 Middle Eastern nations destroyed, and “global warming” taxes that allow the rich their private jets, but tax the rest of us into oblivion. All of this will be cheered on by the corporate media - if you oppose any of these things, you’re a nazi-racist-xenophobe-denier.
In other words, don’t look for help from “the system.” The downtrend is fully locked in place. Government will continue to keep the pesticide-sickcare-big-tech-defense-endless-war cartel harvesting all of us until l it all blows up spectacularly. Perhaps some environmental catastrophe will be the triggering mechanism.
According to Armstrong, confidence in government must collapse before the current structure can be torn down and replaced…with…what exactly?
That will be up to us. It will be at that moment we can have an impact. That is when people will be ready to listen.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrongeconomics101/opinion/we-are-all-connected-for-a-end-game-purpose/ We are all connected and perhaps we can contribute when the time comes. We are all in this mess together albeit not by our own actions or choice. But just remember, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot force him to drink. We, unfortunately, are in that position. We cannot change the outcome. Nobody will listen. We must remain patient and firm. When the time comes for the crash and burn, then and only then will we have a fleeting moment to turn the course of history in the right direction. ... The talking heads believe they must assign some rational explanation to every move in the markets. They only perpetuate myths and are just void of any reality or logic in the absence of empirical research in favor of presumption. They lack any understanding of the bell curve effect and it is like wine. A glass of red wine is good for the heart. A bottle of red wine is bad for the liver. Anything can kill you if taken to extremes – cold as well as heat. Just remember the bell curve – all things possess a cycle.In Czechoslovakia, it was only after the Berlin Wall fell that the dissident Vaclev Havel, jailed by the Communists during their time in power, could be elected President of the country. Things will remain stuck until the turn occurs. Once the turn happens, events will unfold very quickly. We might consider constructing a vision of what we would like to see while we await the logic of events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1clav_Havel What is it that we'd like to create?
It looks like the “Doubt is our product” industry is thriving.
I have been going from memory from readings done over many years and have not archived things. I have been trying to find some articles but have mostly found more technical stuff. There are hundreds of papers debunking the warmist dogma but they are not written for the layman and don’t find their way into popular media. Here is a link that references some of them.
http://notrickszone.com/2018/12/10/the-list-grows-now-85-scientific-pape…
The thing is, even if you demonstrate, scientifically, that the greenhouse effect is bogus, you can’t ignore the fact that we are TRASHING our one and only planet and the consequences are piling up at an unimaginable pace.
Cause not withstanding, my neck of the woods, Wisconsin, has warmed considerably, the last 35 years. The hardiness zones in Southern Wisconsin have moved North 150 miles, so far.
I see no point in continuing. You seem to be in a teaching frame of mind, not a learning mode.
I noticed you haven’t posted here much in the past. Perhaps you are unaware that this topic has been debated adnausium since it was first broached on this website. Many here have tired of the debate and moved on.
Chris,
Thank you for your reply. I’m under no illusions about “benevolent dictatorships,” honest.
The problem is the existing political system shows no evidence of rising to the challenge, for at least two reasons, and something different needs to be attempted, no matter how uncomfortable.
Reason #1: It’s not a democracy anyway. Any political system where consultants can talk intelligently about where to put their advertising buys in order to alter the vote percentage is a system that doesn’t rely on the informed public, but on the successful short-term alteration of public opinion. It’s a system that values celebrity and wealth, because those are the two gates to short-term changes of public opinion. Do I need to provide you with examples of how long-term public opinion is not reflected in America’s government – no, of course not. Capitalism and genuine democracy are only compatible until someone has more wealth or celebrity than someone else; that is, for, possibly, up to a week. Well-regulated capitalism might allow a democracy to survive for longer, but eventually the wealth differential rises and someone buys the regulators.
Reason #2: Democracies do not represent the vast majority of sentient beings. The suffering of non-citizens is just an “externality.” The suffering of animals: externality. The trashing of what future generations will need: yes, externality.
I fully agree that a solution requires a change in cultural norms, because a solution requires that most people behave in ways fundamentally different than the self-centered ways that most of us behave, most of the time. My question is, will we get those changed norms without changing our political system in ways we will all find unpalatable. I assume you and I agree that if the cultural norms change by 2200, that does our descendants little good, because the planet’s ecological web will already have been thoroughly altered in ways that make it less able to support billions of human beings in satisfying lives.
So if we don’t have seven generations to come around to egoless wisdom in our own behavior and in the behavior of those we elect, we need something that brings about more rapid change in the effects we are having on the planet.
I’m aware that change for the better can be rapid – as a gay man I’ve seen gays go from Alan Turing pariahs to near-equal citizenship in two generations. But that is not a change in selfish behavior, it is a willingness to enlarge the circle of fungible money sources. Many conservatives of two generations ago had gay friends but would still vote against gay rights. It was no sacrifice on their part to accept gays into the charmed circle; quite the opposite. The gay community, especially that of gay men, having been deemed immoral by so many, had presented an extraordinarily materialistic public face to society – welcoming our money and capability was the opposite of sacrifice to the corporations who wished to sell to us and make use of our abilities.
A better example of the time it takes for change is the way America has treated the descendants of its slaves, and those who share their skin color. The system is still incredibly, fundamentally racist. If you are wealthy and black, you may do just fine in American business, but you may still be shot by police for trying to enter your home in a “white neighborhood,” especially if you’d been jogging and not wearing a business suit uniform. That’s more than a dozen generations after slavery was delegitimized in America.
I think it pays to examine the difference between those two examples – in one case, people could hide and become wealthy (visible to the system), while in the other, skin color was a dead giveaway and the accumulation of wealth by those outside the circle remained much harder. The rapidity of the change was determined not by moral reasons but by whether the change brought more money into the system; that is, by the selfishness of those already inside.
I’ve been the opposite of a “military man” all my life – I do not think highly of a system that I think was characterized quite well by the Marine Corps General Smedley Butler in his book “War is a Racket.” But I know of only one part of our society with the ability to mobilize vast resources quickly without being encumbered by the need to convince a majority, and that is the military.
All my life, I’ve heard the cliche that “democracy is the least bad system.” In my opinion, events have overtaken that cliche. Whatever we have that we call democracy has proven to be far from the least bad system; it is the system that has already destroyed much of our wealth of biological diversity, celebrating its goodness while doing so. Our democratic system has known of the crisis for two generations, and would have taken action, perhaps, if it weren’t run by and for the oil companies, the rest of the wealthy, and their hired hands. It is time for some Platonic Guardians With Bombs; they don’t need to remain uncorrupted for long, just for long enough to dismantle the disaster of a system that so many of us still celebrate, just as the crowd celebrated the Emperor’s New Clothes. If the Platonic Guardians turn into corrupt plutocrats, ok, fine, they can be the new set to fight against. But the norms will have changed and, hopefully, the power of fossil fuel wealth will have been broken.
If there is a good logical argument why what I’m saying is untrue, nobody would be happier to hear it than I would. I have the utmost respect for your analysis and contributions. Thank you for them.
LesPhelps wrote:
The thing is, even if you demonstrate, scientifically, that the greenhouse effect is bogus, you can’t ignore the fact that we are TRASHING our one and only planet and the consequences are piling up at an unimaginable pace.
Cause not withstanding, my neck of the woods, Wisconsin, has warmed considerably, the last 35 years. The hardiness zones in Southern Wisconsin have moved North 150 miles, so far.
I see no point in continuing. You seem to be in a teaching frame of mind, not a learning mode.
I noticed you haven’t posted here much in the past. Perhaps you are unaware that this topic has been debated adnausium since it was first broached on this website. Many here have tired of the debate and moved on.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology is a government agency that has been caught red-handed in temp data malfeasance by several people. They hurl the epithet "denier’ at anyone who questions them. Here is what Jennifer Marohasy, a prominent Australian scientist recently wrote about them:
"Also, for some years I have been pointing-out that there is no consistency in the methods used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to measure surface temperatures, and that the routine remodeling of temperature series by the ACORN-SAT unit within the Bureau is not scientific.
- I’ve provided details in letters to various Ministers, including, for example, this letter sent to Simon Birmingham in 2014.
- I’ve also sent letters to Auditors and Chief Scientists, for example, this letter sent to Alan Finkel in 2018.
- I’ve also published my concerns in popular magazines, including this article, published by The Spectator online in 2017.
I’ve no doubt that one day there will be a proper enquiry, and my efforts will be vindicated. In the meantime, no one in a position of authority is willing to acknowledge the extent of the problem or its implications. We have a long history in Australia of ignoring such evidence, and then holding Royal Commissions at which everyone shakes their heads and suggests that it was appalling the abuse – that was allowed to happen for so long despite all the evidence from the whistleblower"
Stan Robertson wrote:
This topic has been debated to exhaustion in The Definitive Climate Change thread, but Old Guy is right that there is nothing but models to suggest that more than half of the warming of the last century was caused by humans, or that anything worse should be expected for the rest of this one.
Anyone with the science knowledge and skills to read and understand the scientific literature should know that there is zero evidence to link extreme weather events to anthropogenic global warming. Even the UN IPCC disavows this. That is why it is so disappointing to me that Chris is so quick to sound alarms based on weather events. It would be much more honest, and in the long term, more effective for him to continue to sound the alarms over the chemical catastrophe that is being driven by our debt based currency system. Choosing to use the wrong information to support a correct cause sometimes backfires. People can throw your cause baby out with your wrong information bath water.
Accident
In January 2008, Alice Springs in Australia's Northern Territory recorded ten consecutive days of temperatures above 40 °C (104 °F) with the average temperature for that month being 39.8 °C (103.6 °F). In March 2008, Adelaide, South Australia experienced maximum temperatures of above 35 °C (95 °F) for fifteen consecutive days, seven days more than the previous longest stretch of 35 °C (95 °F) days. The March 2008 heat wave also included eleven consecutive days above 38 °C (100 °F).[13] The heat wave was especially notable because it occurred in March, an autumn month, in which Adelaide averages only 2.3 days above 35 °C (95 °F). (Source for this and all following data)Coincidence
The Australian summer of 2012–2013, known as the Angry Summer or Extreme Summer, resulted in 123 weather records being broken over a 90-day period, including the hottest day ever recorded for Australia as a whole, the hottest January on record, the hottest summer average on record, and a record seven days in row when the whole continent averaged above 39 °C (102 °F).[33][34] Single-day temperature record were broken in dozens of towns and cities, as well as single-day rainfall records, and several rivers flooded to new record highs.[33] From 28 December 2012 through at least 9 January 2013 Australia has faced its most severe heatwave in over 80 years, with a large portion of the nation recording high temperature reading above 40 °C to 45 °C or greater in some areas, a couple spots have also neared 50 °C (122 °F). This extreme heat has also resulted in a 'flash' drought across southern and central areas of the country and has sparked several massive wildfires due to periodic high winds.[35] [Note: I would presume the "hottest day ever recorded for Australia as a whole" means that whatever the 1890 heatwave was got exceeded, right]Enemy Action
In February 2017, Australia experienced an extreme heat wave with temperatures as high as 46.6 °C (115.9 °F)[54] in Port Macquarie, New South Wales and 47.6 °C (117.7 °F) in Ivanhoe, New South Wales.[55]Repeated Enemy Fire
2018 - 2019 Australian heat wave. From December 25, 2018, Australia was plunged with constant record-breaking heatwaves with few breaks. December 2018 was recorded as the hottest December in record, while New South Wales had their warmest January since 2011.[70][71] Adelaide recorded its hottest day on record on January 24, surpassing the previous record from 1939, reaching 46.6 °C (115.9 °F) at 3:36pm local time, and many settlements across South Australia set new records the same day. At least one man, 90 feral horses and 2,000 bats died, while 25,000 homes lost power.[72][73][74] Melbourne was forecast its hottest day since the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires on January 25 (although this failed to eventuate), while over 200,000 homes across Victoria lost power due to load shedding.[75] ++++++++++++ The way my brain works, I look at this data for Australia and I observe that 4 of the most extreme heatwaves, including the most intense ever, occurred in the last ten years after 150 years of record keeping. Hmmmm. Could all be a big coincidence, right? Sometimes dice jsut come up sake eyes 4 times in a row, and we don't wonder if something about the dice has changed because the simplest, most likely scientific explanation is that a profoundly unlikely string of occurances is that it's all random? Maybe. But what about 40,000 years of glacial records in the arctic?Glacial retreat in the Canadian Arctic has uncovered landscapes that haven’t been ice-free in more than 40,000 years and the region may be experiencing its warmest century in 115,000 years, new University of Colorado Boulder research finds. (Source)Glaciers are simple beasts. If the summer temperatures are warmer than average they retreat, if colder they advance. Again, another coincidence? How many coicidences should we be willing to tolerate? When do we say "hey, maybe there's something happening here?" After a dozen more? Two dozen? I could pull up a hundred other such data points. They seem to coalesce around the theory of "things being warmer." What's your preferred approach to all this? Wait and see? And how to you dismiss ocean acidification which is pretty much linear. Boyle's gas law plus some Chem 101 gets you there.
Well, Les:
We may be trashing our planet but it has nothing to do with CO2. It means that if we make that the focal point of policies we are not solving problems but wasting resources without making progress but actually making things worse. To spend hundreds of billions, soon to be in the trillions in a false pursuit for a goal that can’t be achieved is destructive behavior.
As far as the hardiness zone in Wisconsin moving north, do you know that for most of the last 11 thousand years the tree-line in Canada and Russia was much further north than presently and that tree-lines were substantially higher in elevation on mountains than now. Or that at the edge of currently retreating glaciers there are large tree stumps being exposed that date to 1,000 years ago or even 2,000 years ago that show there were forests growing where in modern times there has only been ice.
Despite the propaganda of the warmists we have actually been living in a time of unusual climate stability the last hundred years. In this interglacial, the Sahara desert was once a forest with lush vegetation and flowing rivers. Then weather patterns shifted and it quickly became a desert. In the Middle East and in the western US civilizations have gone exstinct from sudden climate shifts. We have seen nothing like that recently.
Kids now are propagandized from grade school to view every weather event as being unusual and ominous when in fact it has all happened before and is not unprecedented. Recent flooding in California was suppossedly caused by man-made climate change, but in 1860 there was a flood that had the entiire central valley 300 miles north-south and 50 miles across under up to 20 feet of water. And that was before the land in the valley subsided by several feet due to water extraction from the underlying aquifer for irrigation. And then when there was recently a multi-year drought in California it was blamed on global warming but several centuries ago there was a drought in California that lasted for over 200 years.
The climate in recent decades has been incredibly benign and in fact a temperature increase of a couple of celsius degrees and an increase in growing seasons and northward expansion od agriculture and increased growth rates from CO2 would be a great thing and a boon to humanity and wildlife. I could go on much longer but you get the drift.
As for being in a teaching mood, I am simply stating what I know. As for learning, I have listened to the warmists and they are not very persuasive with factual arguments. They make a lot of stuff up that is quickly dismantled because it is not factually based, but basically their technique is endless repetition of dogma and attempts to close out counter arguments and real debates, as well as name-calling and demonization as a weapon.
And yes, you are right. Debate with people who have succumbed to the propaganda is largely fruitless. Facts and logic don’t penetrate people who have a religious-like devotion to a cause or belief system.
Australian heat:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/forgotten-extreme-heat-el-nino-of-1878-…
Ocean acidification:
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification…
The temperature data record has been tampered with and adjusted to such a degree that it is unfit for use.The warmists in government agencies have used all sorts of tricks to distort the record and create an exagerated warming. They do this because their fundamental science is weak and so they despeately need the temperature record to validate them.
A hundred years ago there were no thermometers over most of the earth so that allows for a huge fudge factor for setting up a base-line temperature as they can just make up or estimate temps to go into the baseline. They have no precise knowledge at all of what ocean temps were a hundred years ago.
Distortions have been created because thermometers that once were in open fields are now surrounded by buildings and ashphalt as cities have grown around them. They used to record temps once a day for the high and once for the low. Now digital thermometers record constantly and record for the high a puff of warm air that came by at whatever time. It has been estimated that this alone has increased temp recordings by .3C degrees.
Several years ago they dropped hundreds of thermometers from the recording system and this again immediately raised average temperature as all of the thermometers in cities and airports were kept and mostly rural ones dropped.
There is also a fudge factor with temps in that they are estimated for certain areas of the globe or “homogenized” to a thermometer up to 1200 kilometers away and you know in which direction warmists will fudge. Recently it was shown that large areas of the globe that were recorded as substantially above normal last year actually had not a single temp recording station in the area.
And then there is just the blatant altering and adjustments of temps without disclosing methodologies and giving flimsy rationals.
Old Guy,
if I follow your train of thought correctly, you are saying that warming causes more CO2 in the atmosphere and not the other way around. That extra CO2 comes largely from the oceans which are the main reservoirs of CO2 as warming waters hold less CO2. Correct me if I’m wrong up to now. That begs the question, in your worldview, how do you account for the acidification of oceans (which seems to be a fact)? According to your model, less CO2 in the ocean due to warmer tempetures = less acidic oceans, or shouldn’t it be so?