Get real old guy. The thermometers are in the glacier and ocean sediment cores, and they extend back for hundreds of thousands of years. Those temperature distortions of yours are in your personal belief system and/or are part of the “doubt is our product” industry. Please paste a link to REAL peer reviewed studies that demonstrates your point. Maybe I should paste a link to copies of internal oil company documents written in the 70s that say global warming is real and a threat to life on this planet. They parallel similar tobacco industry documents from the 50s. Those documents were not voluntarily released. I wonder why.
Please try to understand the word “average.” If you are looking for absolute proofs of climate change you better stop looking. Proofs only exist in theoretical mathematics. Everything else in science are probabilities. The more coincidences there are, the higher the probability that there’s a connection. The vast majority of them point to a warming planet. For example, there was a study of the Yukon glaciers a while back. Of the 300 or so studied, 4 increased in size, 12 totally disappeared, and the rest reduced in size. The denialists’ conclusion: The glaciers are increasing. Similarly, the shrinking temperature differential between the poles and the equator is destabilizing the jet stream, causing wilder fluctuations. This will occasionally bring short term arctic blasts to warmer regions. The denialists conclusion: Global warming is fiction. Of course, they ignore the long term “average” warming that’s occurring in every region of this planet. The “average” temperature is the only thing that matters here since there is so much inertia in the climate system. The effects of the CO2 we are pumping out now will not be seen for 40 years.
Children are being propagandized? Who has the money to fund this massive “incubator baby” propaganda machine? The climate scientists’ grant money would only pay for a few seconds of it. There are a couple of passages in Hitler’s Mein Kampf where he talks about how the American and English WW1 propaganda was far superior to that of the Germans. Of course, the Nazis made massive advances in it during WW2, but the stuff we are flooded with today would probably make Hitler blush.
Chris,
At the risk of being thought to be older than Old Guy, I will see your south Australia and raise you the dust bowl years in Oklahoma. I live through the last part of these. It was hotter, longer and drier that south Australia of recent years. The 30s, 40s and 50s were miserable here. The records of temperatures and heat waves from those times still stand. Nothing like those conditions have been seen again. A recurrence of similar conditions these days would surely be cited as evidence for anthropogenic climate change. But the 30s were times when the CO2 in the atmosphere was barely above the pre-industrial levels. Humans had nothing to do with it aside from some poor soil conservation practices.
I still think that you would make a stronger case if you didn’t stoke weather fears among the youngsters. Just my $0.02. What they need to concentrate on is the death of the insects. Car windshields have never been so clean around here and the ill informed public seems to think that to be a good thing.
Stan
His essay is full of words about systems but he doesn’t seem to understand the basics of systems, feedback, stability and limits.
A low information read.
His essay is full of words about systems but he doesn’t seem to understand the basics of systems, feedback, stability and limits.
A low information read.
Can we declare a cease fire on the climate debating, please? I offer two scenarios:
Possibility A: The best climate science says we’re already in an era of tipping points and feedback loops, and it no longer matters what mitigating action we take – it’s too late; the in-progress climate acceleration will overwhelm any efforts we take. (And, supposing it isn’t too late, even self-identifying environmentalists will not be willing to make the drastic lifestyle changes necessary to go to a zero-carbon lifestyle.)
Possibility B: The deniers are right, it’s all an elaborate plot to over-tax us and lead us to one-world government.
Well, the observable action by governments is that they talk a lot about climate change and do absolutely nothing, or at least nothing effective. So, even if A is wrong, the evidence says that B is not happening in any way that is a significant threat.
But IMO, all the discussions on Peak Prosperity reveal that the unfolding collapse is much broader than just climate issues. Remove climate from the framing, and civilization is still facing the sharp “up” part of multiple exponential curves, all bad.
A climate debate based on the “do something” vs. “don’t do anything” (or other variations) no longer feels meaningful. We’re now in adaptation mode to deal with many coming problems. I personally think climate is one of them, but even if it’s not, there’s still going to be hell to pay.
Mark
I read some work by Dr. Jack Kruse a while back. His contention is that evolution is not a gradual process as most think of it today. He thinks there are periods of rapid change in the environment during which most biological evolutionary changes occur. The last such period was when an asteroid struck the Earth near the Gulf of Mexico. According to him, at that time lots of rapid evolution took place among plants and animals.
The hopeful part me thinks maybe the Divine Order is gearing up for another such period.
The pesimistic part of me thinks the powers that be are not blind to these issues & their only solution is massive population reduction.
Since I can’t seem to paste graphs into the box take a look at the graphs on this page derived from ice core data that present a good perspective on where we are with present temps relative to the rest of the present interglacial.
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/holocene-context-for-catastrophic-anthro…
louisdoran, ocean acidification is not happening. A link below. Could post others.
http://notrickszone.com/2016/12/29/the-ocean-acidification-narrative-col…
Alright Jean, I can see that the discussion is getting tiresome. So maybe we should stop talking about actual climate and temps. But there is something that stems from the climate change agenda that also speaks to your point and is contributing greatly to our economic decline. That is the hundreds of billions that have already been spent and continue to be spent as a result of government policies and mandates based on the CO2 causes climate change assumptions. I am talking of the attempted move into renewable energy and the money spent directly and via taxpayer subsidies toward that end.
I assert that this is pure folly, has no hope of succeeding, is actually environmentally destructive, would cost trillions, raise electricity prices many times over, provide thoroughly unreliable energy and result in energy grid instability to the point of collapse long before 100% saturation is achieved. And would dramatically lower living standards and general human welfare.
But rather than elaborate further I’ll just post this link that explains some of it well. Renewable(green) energy is just not what the starry-eyed believers think it is. In fact, it is a horrible idea.
https://www.iceagenow.info/wiping-out-80-of-our-energy-would-bring-wides…
Les, there is nothing stopping you or anyone else from commenting on any aspect of the article you care to and creating a different line of discussion.
My experience has been that most people who have an opinion on the climate issue have no idea what the actual facts are. They are aware of the notion that CO2 is supposed to trap heat but that’s it. For people on the political left it is de rigueur that they believe in it period and a litmus test for being a true leftist. Many on the right take an opposite stance just because of this. But most disbelievers can’t make a case to support the belief either.
Yes, I won’t change most minds, but there may be some fence sitters or people with tentative beliefs who are open to information. Probably also some who are skeptical but haven’t looked deeply into the issue and can use some reinforcing.
So I’m not going to make a difference. People have written well researched books on the topic and have not made any difference. But they wrote them anyway.
I would suggest buy or grow more food that you can properly store away for long term food storage. When you think you have enough for your family for a year, double it. Then double it again. Then again. Etc. There are plenty of resources out there to learn how to properly store food and other necessities. Whatever happens and whoever is right on these arguments one thing is apparent, you will need to eat. Food rs really cheap today. Tomorrow maybe not so much after a worldwide crop failure. Wish I had better advice but I don’t. Good luck and I pray God will bless all of us.
Recall that one of my acquaintances in Canberra is a meteorologist, employed by the Australian Bureau of Meteorolgy (BoM). He’s retired now but still alert and active, currently teaching at a technical college, and definitely didn’t leave his brains behind at the departure desk.
I asked him for his opinion on the data set pointed to in post #55 above, this one:
(Nobby’s Signal Station is on the coast, BTW.)
Here’s what he told me (emphasis mine throughout).
Such people are amazing and very selective in their data interpretation. He obviously ignored the very important caveat BoM placed on the data in the bottom left corner. This data has not been quality controlled and before 1910 who knows how the temperature was measured and how dodgy the thermometers were. There are lots of factors that can affect temperature readings over time such as site changes changes in equipment supplies if not properly calibrated changes in equipment containers unreliable observers vegetation growth around the site building activities nearby and a whole lot of other things. BoM has put an enormous amount of effort into looking at all those factors to come up with a very reliable data set called The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) dataset. That is the best data set to use. I personally know and worked with for many years the person who did all the work checking the data sets (or supervising others who did the work) which eventually became known as The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network. It is the highest quality, most reliable data set of Australian temperature data that it is possible to produce. I have no doubt as to its reliability. You can read about The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network dataset here: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/index.shtml#tabs=ACORN%E2.... The same rigorous analysis procedures (co-ordinated by the World Meteorological Organization) have been carried out on the various global data sets managed by the meteorological services of other countries. The other problem with the data used is that any scientist worth his salt would take one look at that data set and know that there is something seriously wrong with the data before 1910, or something extremely weird is happening to the weather during that period which would have to be explained and correlated with other observations around Australia (or the world). Until that had been explained you wouldn't use the data. The other thing climate change deniers seem to forget is that climate change is a global phenomenon and shows up very clearly in global data sets. Cherry picking by choosing a particular observation site and only looking at that site doesn't really tell us anything about what is happening globally. I usually don't engage with climate deniers as it is a complete waste of time.I can vouch from my nigh-on 70 years of residence in Australia that extreme temperatures are normal and to be expected in many parts of the country. Look up the records for Marble Bar, for instance, and you'll see what I mean. I was told recently that the punishing weather that Canberra has had for the past 2–3 weeks is normal in Port Pirie (q.v.). The big deal that it has extended to the "cool, temperate" south-east and is destroying ecosystems as a result. Our backyard garden has been damaged, even though we tried to keep the water up to the veggies. Even cool, wet Tasmania has been suffering badly from bushfires in once-beautiful places. We were so fortunate to have visited the burnt areas a few years ago and to have seen them before they turned to charcoal and ash. Like Chris and others I am in a state of constant mourning amd grief over the perverse way in which we treat our planet. Nothing is sacred, nothing is beautiful, no damage is too great, we must hurtle into the abyss as rapidly as possible. Honestly, it's psychopaths all the way down.
Several interesting points raised; sensemaking…
I also always get a kick out of hearing the argument that CO2 only represents 0.04% of the atmosphere and therefore couldn't possibly have the strong effect we are told it does! How many times have I heard this... right then and there I lose respect for the poster because it's clear they're trying to mislead the reader and I can't be bothered to read on. On one hand, they'll play the "1 in 10,000 molecules" card from one corner of their mouth, but then the next thing they point out is how important water vapour is to the greenhouse effect... but there's only 5 times (not 50 as you suggest) more water vapour than CO2. So what happened to that "1 in 400 molecules" red herring, old guy? It doesn't apply to water vapour, only to CO2?
First of all, the majority of the atmosphere; Nitrogen + Oxygen + Argon constitutes 99.7% of the atmosphere if you assume average 0.25% water vapour. N2, O2, and Ar have no infrared absorbing characteristics so they can be taken out of the equation. They are essentially irrelevant other than their convective effects. So now, instead of "1 molecule in 10,000" we're down to 1 in 7 molecules. Big jump, eh?
It is true that most of the infrared trapping comes from water vapour and I don't recall any scientist suggesting otherwise. The issue is that a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour and therefore have greater warming capacity. This would tend to create a positive feedback runaway effect. But there are other negative feedback loops which would prevent this. But, any forcing that would tend to increase temperature a small amount can have an amplified reaction due to increasing water vapour. This is the positive feedback relationship that has always existed in the planet's history and explains why, even though the slow planetary wobbles that cause ice ages are gradual, the shifts in climate are not because critical thresholds are reached where the negative feedback effects are overrun by the positive ones; this is why certain GHG's which are not the dominant ones in the atmosphere, can tip the balance and cause such runaway effects.
Of course heat is convected upwards as warm air rises to be repaced by cooler air descending and then that heat is radiated away at higher altitudes. No argument there. I never claimed that the molecules just dance their way out to space. And yes the energy is re-radiated in all directions. It bounces around between the radiative molecules at the speed of light but with an upward bias as the molecule density thins as you go up and thickens as you go down. The curvature of the earth also means that as you go higher the pathway out expands and it’s not a 50/50 proposition.
I will dispute that water vapour only makes up .25% as it is generally accepted to be between 1 and 2%. But yes, water vapour is so important because it can absorb the energy available in the band that CO2 can absorb, so between water vapour and CO2 they absorb all of that small amount of energy whether initially or on re-radiation. So that equation doesn’t change.
As for the oxygen and nitrogen molecules, how do you think they get rid of their heat which they acquired via conduction from contact at earth’s surface or bumping into each other during constant convective motion. They give it up by collisions with water vapour which then rises and radiates it at higher altitudes or gives up its heat when condensing and precipitating out.
Water vapour actually cools the air when the sun is shining. This is shown when at a similar latitude, the air is cooler where water vapour is higher than the dryer air over a desert. The water vapour acquires heat from collisions with oxygen and nitrogen and then rises and radiates that heat away. At night with no heat input from the sun magnifying convection the water vapour keeps the temps slightly warmer.
As for the run-away greenhouse effect, initially from CO2 forcing and then from the increased water vapour, it is ridiculous on the face of it. First, because as just mentioned water vapour removes heat from the atmosphere. But mainly because if this were the case then temperature increase from any cause would initiate this feedback loop and this clearly hasn’t happened during all the times the earth was hotter and sometimes much hotter.The warmists just made this up because they knew that they couldn’t creditably claim that CO2 by itself could cause significant temperature increase. This is where the theory really falls off a cliff.
I’d say the data is not on the warmists side as during the Holocene we have had significant temperature fluctuations while CO2 levels were stable.
METEOROLOGIST JEFF HABY
Water vapor varies by volume in the atmosphere from a trace to about 4%. Therefore, on average, only about 2 to 3% of the molecules in the air are water vapor molecules. The amount of water vapor in the air is small in extremely arid areas and in location where the temperatures are very low (i.e. polar regions, very cold weather). The volume of water vapor is about 4% in very warm and humid tropical air.
I honestly don’t know how much of an issue convection is. But water and lighter elements do dance off into space, and that does over billions of years change the water content of planets and asteroids. If it goes, it takes heat with it too.
One of the big things about our magnetic field is that it keeps the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere… but it is sporadic, and to some extent stripping does happen continuously.
Whether that is a practical consideration, who knows. It is, insofar as we want to colonize other planets: if you really want to do so, you’d probably either better have a fully enclosed system (at which point it is a fragile system that needs active defense against asteroids), or you’d better go ahead and crash a few asteroids into dead ones, to reawaken tectonics and get that molten core going. Then gas the whole thing up, seed it, and live on the surface as on Earth.