Further evidence warming is nanufactured

[Old_Trapper70]

So is water but we are lightyears away from it. As PR observed we have had massively higher levels.

Yes, and we did not have the life forms on earth at the time. 10,000 years ago there was little life of any form on earth. If you feel that CO2 is not dangerous then tell that to the people living in urban China, India, or those that lived in Los Angeles prior to the passing of the Clean Air Act. Water vapor is another of those gasses when combined with all constitutes the danger people speak of. As to whether or not we are "light years" away, where is your evidence that such is the case? Beijing?

BTW, there is a reason why China is spending 300 Million dollars on solar this year. Yes, they are still building coal fired plants, however, solar is becoming the majority of their production. And just as the right wing has led the country to its downfall in the past so will it do in the future:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/en...ch-on-world-s-largest-floating-solar-farm.htm

 

[palerider]

And I don't see anything about the causes of those increases in temperature.

Can you say "natural variability"? It certainly wasn't due to the internal combustion engine or CO2.


Not sure how you can say that when crops are failing all over the world due to lack of water. And, contrary to your "definition", it has nothing to do with "native crops" even though we have shown you where native forests are dying off due to lack of water.

drought in Science
drought

(drout)
A long period of abnormally low rainfall, lasting up to several years.

The one definition that has any actual meaning...and history tells us that what you are calling drought isn't even close to the very natural very long times of little rain those regions have experienced...in some cases hundreds of years.

The eons in which CO2 reached your 7000ppm level were times when life was not present in its current form, and the earth was forming.

No..the earth was well formed. CO2 was in excess of 7000 ppm in the latter cambrian period....Ever hear of the cambrian exposition.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

Now, lets get on to the negative effects of pollution, and, in spite of your offhanded comments, you do support pollution:

Pollution and CO2 are two very different things and the very real environmental problems we have are not going to be addressed so long as the AGW scam is sucking all the air out of the room and all the treasure out of the coffers.

 

[palerider]

Yes, and we did not have the life forms on earth at the time. 10,000 years ago there was little life of any form on earth.

The atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 7000 ppm during the latter part of the cambrian period...ever hear of the cambrian explosion? The proliferation of life during that period was vast.

And when the earth began to descend into the ice age that it is still crawling out of, CO2 was very close to 1000 ppm...more than twice what you guys are claiming is going to cause run away warming.

If you feel that CO2 is not dangerous then tell that to the people living in urban China, India, or those that lived in Los Angeles prior to the passing of the Clean Air Act.

It wasn't CO2 that hurt those people...sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbon vapors and in China, the problem is heavy metals and lead compounds combined with the sort of smog that plagued California...not CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant.

BTW, there is a reason why China is spending 300 Million dollars on solar this year. Yes, they are still building coal fired plants, however, solar is becoming the majority of their production. And just as the right wing has led the country to its downfall in the past so will it do in the future:

Bullshit...solar will never be the majority of anyone's production...and when the pollution bill comes due for so called renewables like solar and wind, the cost is going to be staggering...far more than nuclear ever thought of being.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

The atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 7000 ppm during the latter part of the cambrian period...ever hear of the cambrian explosion? The proliferation of life during that period was vast.

And when the earth began to descend into the ice age that it is still crawling out of, CO2 was very close to 1000 ppm...more than twice what you guys are claiming is going to cause run away warming.



It wasn't CO2 that hurt those people...sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbon vapors and in China, the problem is heavy metals and lead compounds combined with the sort of smog that plagued California...not CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Whatever you say PR. We know you are the know all of know alls even when wrong:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

Bullshit...solar will never be the majority of anyone's production...and when the pollution bill comes due for so called renewables like solar and wind, the cost is going to be staggering...far more than nuclear ever thought of being.

It is the majority of their production which is not to say it will produce the majority of their electrical needs. As to cost, cleaning up the mess left by coal, and oil, has cost billions, and will reach trillions.

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/19/44997...s-wells-states-are-left-with-the-cleanup-bill

https://www.vox.com/2016/9/2/12757074/coal-bankruptcy-mine-cleanup

http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/14/in-coal-county-no-cash-in-hand-for-billions-in-cleanup/

 

[palerider]

Whatever you say PR. We know you are the know all of know alls even when wrong:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm

Skeptical Science? Really? Now I am laughing out loud...great donkey laughs right in your face. With that, you have said all about yourself and the quality of your character that ever need be said. Skeptical science....

HHHHHEEEEEEHAAAAAWWWWWW HHHHHEEEEEHHHHAAAAAWWWWW


There really is one born every minute...congratulations...you are he.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Skeptical Science? Really? Now I am laughing out loud...great donkey laughs right in your face. With that, you have said all about yourself and the quality of your character that ever need be said. Skeptical science....

HHHHHEEEEEEHAAAAAWWWWWW HHHHHEEEEEHHHHAAAAAWWWWW


There really is one born every minute...congratulations...you are he.

Well, you certainly do sound like an ass.

60+ wildfires in Western US, and 220 in BC Canada. Most being driven by dry conditions, and abnormally high temperatures. But hey, you know more then those who study the climate for a career. In any event, since you seem to be intellectually challenged to have an informed debate, and seem to feel that the only argument you have is man made climate changed, something I have never argued, maybe this will help to end your confused state:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/co2-is-not-a-pollutant

Then there is this:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly

"As humans put ever more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth heats up. These are the basics of global warming. But where does the heat go? How much extra heat is there? And how accurate are our measurements? These are questions that climate scientists ask. If we can answer these questions, it will better help us prepare for a future with a very different climate. It will also better help us predict what that future climate will be.

The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, “global warming” is really “ocean warming.” If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established.

These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming."

 

[palerider]

60+ wildfires in Western US, and 220 in BC Canada. Most being driven by dry conditions, and abnormally high temperatures. But hey, you know more then those who study the climate for a career. In any event, since you seem to be intellectually challenged to have an informed debate, and seem to feel that the only argument you have is man made climate changed, something I have never argued, maybe this will help to end your confused state:

And round and round the circular thinking goes. That would be because you are stuck looking at the short term as if the short term could tell you anything about the climate. If the long term history of the areas showed that they had always been lush and green, and that lush greenness suddenly came to a halt and was replaced with drought, you would at least have a data point to stand on...you don't. the climate history of those areas is long periods with little rain...some lasting hundreds of years. And the aquifers....that is just misuse...not the fault of climate. When you live in an area that normally sees long periods of dry climate, how much do you think you can legitimately pump out of the aquifer and expect it to be naturally replaced?

"As humans put ever more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth heats up. These are the basics of global warming. But where does the heat go? How much extra heat is there? And how accurate are our measurements? These are questions that climate scientists ask. If we can answer these questions, it will better help us prepare for a future with a very different climate. It will also better help us predict what that future climate will be.

The very language of that is laughable..."heat trapping gasses"? Where is this heat that is being trapped? And how does a gas with no ability to absorb IR and hold it "trap" anything? The greenhouse hypothesis and the AGW hypothesis both predict that if you increase the so called "greenhouse gasses" in the atmosphere that the resulting "trapping" of energy will result in a tropospheric hot spot...it isn't happening. A million plus radiosondes confirm that fact. Predictive failure. That is a valid scientific reason to disregard the hypotheses and begin looking for another that can more accurately predict reality.

Then there is what the satellites tell us..here are two graphs, both measuring outgoing long wave radiation over the same part of the world. One taken by the IRIS satellite in 1970 and one taken by the TES satellite in 2006.

Now print those two graphs out and overlay them...the outgoing long wave in the CO2 absorption frequencies measured in 1970 is identical to the measurement taken in 2006. There is considerably more CO2 in the atmosphere in 2006 than there was in 1970 but the amount of measured outgoing long wave in the CO2 emission band is the same. Now, think real hard...what do you think that says about the statement that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses "trap" energy".

Here is a clue. It means that the hypothesis has failed again. In real science, a single predictive failure is adequate reason to dump a hypothesis and start work on a new one. The missing hot spot and the actual measurements above both demonstrate predictive failures and yet, the failed hypothesis persists.

So there is observed, measured, quantified evidence that CO2 is not trapping energy and causing the atmosphere to warm. I have asked you over and over for a single piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability..to date, you haven't brought even one shred of evidence here to support your belief. If you were a thinking person, that fact might set of a signal in your brian, but it hasn't.

All you seem to be able to do is post the sort of pseudoscience that has been good enough to fool you. Article after article delivering opinion after opinion and not the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the opinions. Ever wonder why? Well, above is some observed, measured, quantified evidence and it shoots your opinion right in the head....the observed, measured, quantified evidence says that your opinion is shit.

The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, “global warming” is really “ocean warming.”

Why, yes it is....and guess what...infrared radiation can not penetrate the oceans...so the so called back radiation that is what is supposed to be causing global warming can not warm the oceans, it can't penetrate the surface of the ocean more than a tiny fraction of a millimeter....only short wave energy from the sun is able to penetrate the ocean...so if the oceans are warming, then they are being warmed by the sun...not the atmosphere. The oceans warm the atmosphere, not the other way around...and never mind the observed, measured, quantified evidence that says that no energy is being trapped in the atmosphere as evidenced by the same amount of outgoing long wave measured at the top of the atmosphere in 2006 as was measured in 1970.

The fact is, that you have been duped...you have been hoodwinked by pseudoscience...there may be warming, but it is natural variability...nothing more...nothing less.

These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming."

Still waiting for the first piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...Just one piece. The claim that the oceans are warming is just the claim that oceans are warming...a thermometer can satisfy that claim..observed, measured, quantified evidence...the claim that man is causing the oceans to warm requires actual data as well..observed, measured, quantified evidence.

And if you were involved in the study in any real way, then you have gone a long way towards explaining why science has deteriorated so badly over the course of the 20th century and continues to deteriorate in the 21st. No adherence to the scientific method...quasi religious zealots doing science with a predetermined outcome in mind when they write the grant request papers...people to whom assumptions are good enough and don't feel the need to have any stinking data to support their assumptions. Congratulations...you believe in pseudoscience.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

https://www.climatecentral.org/

 

[palerider]

https://www.climatecentral.org/

Wow...you can find a web site...impressive.

So I looked through your pile of weeping hysterics...and do you know what I didn't find? A single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability. It is all opinion, not backed up with the first piece of real data. I do see where you get your hysterical alarmist language if you regularly consume that sort of tripe thinking it is science. What a joke. Just for example...

Under the heading of "Research" I found this:

This Is How Climate Change Will Shift the World’s Cities

Summers around the world are already warmer than they used to be, and they’re going to get dramatically hotter by century’s end if carbon pollution continues to rise. That problem will be felt most acutely in cities.

That is the title and the first line. In the first sentence he makes the claim that it is going to get dramatically hotter if "carbon pollution" isn't curtailed. A giant assumption right off the bat, and the rest is nothing but weeping bullshit based on the assumption that his assumption is true.

That is under a heading called research...I looked at quite a few others and they are all the same...opinion pieces based on assumptions without the first piece of actual evidence in support of the assumption. If that sort of twaddle meets your definition of science, then I see exactly how you came to be so thoroughly duped.

And then I dropped down and looked at the comments...what a laugh....and not the first question as to what sort of actual data the assumption is based on. One idiot just asked for more US cities to be added to the map.

Tell you what...how about you take a walk over to your heap of weeping hysterics and bring back anything there that you believe constitutes actual evidence that supports AGW over natural variability. There is nothing there but it is always interesting to see what passes for evidence in the minds of those who have been duped into believing. Lets see what passes for actual evidence of our effect on the global climate in your mind.

.......that is, if you aren't to embarrassed to show us how easily you have been fooled.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

http://inthesetimes.com/article/20321/climate-change-right-wing-religion-environmentalism

"Calling environmentalism a form of religion goes back at least to the 1960s, but Crichton’s reputation and precise formulation gave the equation a new power and stickiness. The meme has become one of the Right’s favorite digs at the green movement, and especially at belief in climate change.

Conservatives waste few opportunities to trot it out. A writer for The National Review argued in response to the March for Science, for example, that “this is the dirty little secret of the Left’s sudden embrace of Science—it’s not science they support, but religion. They support that which they believe but cannot prove and do not care about proving.” The New York Times’ newly minted opinion-page writer, Bret Stephens, wrote for the The Wall Street Journal two years ago that belief in climate change is “a religion without God.” And on the day that Donald Trump announced that the United States would abandon the Paris climate-change accord, conservative pundit Mark Steyn appeared on the show Fox and Friends. When a panelist asked why climate change had become “the religion of the Left,” Steyn said that it’s because “it’s so meaningless.”

In 2012, The Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media (now renamed Yale Climate Connections) did a deep dive into the Right’s religion argument. The Forum looked at 100 climate-themed pieces written by conservatives over the previous year, and found that 10 of them raised it. The rate had once been even higher: In the years after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, 2006 to 2008, about 40 percent of conservative essays “framed concern for climate change as a religious belief.”

It’s curious that conservatives, who are usually quite sympathetic to religious faith, demean belief in climate change as a religion and a faith. What’s usually left unstated is the deal-breaking modifier: It’s not a faith but a false faith, a golden calf, an idol that must be denied by conservatives who are faithful to true religion, generally meaning evangelical Christianity."

 

[palerider]

"Calling environmentalism a form of religion goes back at least to the 1960s, but Crichton’s reputation and precise formulation gave the equation a new power and stickiness. The meme has become one of the Right’s favorite digs at the green movement, and especially at belief in climate change.

Crichton isn't the only one who thinks that environmentalism is religious in nature...In UK, the courts agree.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/warmer-gets-150k-for-discrimination

A worker has won almost £100,000 [$153, 900] because his firm discriminated against his environmental views after a landmark legal ruling placed them on a par with religious beliefs.

Tim Nicholson, 42, was made redundant in July 2008 from his £77,000 [$118,503] -a-year post as head of sustainability with Grainger, the UK’s biggest residential landlord.

He was preparing to sue his former employer, alleging that his redundancy was a direct result of his green opinions about the dangers of climate change – which put him at odds with other senior executives within the firm.

At a preparatory hearing last year, a judge ruled that his belief in climate change was legally akin to a religious belief and should be protected from discrimination.......

Since there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting his belief, faith is all that it can be rightly called. Were it science, he could produce observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting his position.

It’s curious that conservatives, who are usually quite sympathetic to religious faith, demean belief in climate change as a religion and a faith. What’s usually left unstated is the deal-breaking modifier: It’s not a faith but a false faith, a golden calf, an idol that must be denied by conservatives who are faithful to true religion, generally meaning evangelical Christianity."

That would be because religion isn't asking for trillions of dollars of our tax money to squander on a non existent problem...religion isn't responsible for useless, and punitive regulation that places undue burdens on industry and results in people losing their livelihoods.

You want to worship gaia?...go ahead...you want to go out in the forest, get naked and hug trees and ugly women...go ahead...but don't ask for me to contribute the fruits of my labor to your wacko, pseudoscientific, beliefs unless you have plenty of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports your claim that we are causing the climate to change and not natural variability...and at present, you can't even produce a single shred of such evidence....much less enough to warrant taking a single dollar from me or anyone else.

Hell, the catholics have more evidence of a coming apocalypse and armageddon than you have of mankind altering the global climate and they aren't asking for a penny from me to prepare for it.

And by the way, were you to embarrassed to bring anything from that steaming pile of pseudoscience you linked to that passed for evidence in your mind?

Can't say that I blame you.

 

[Wag more]

Citrus is an important ag business and the fruit is cold sensitive. Temps of 30 degrees F for 3 hours freeze the fruit and ruin the crop. Temps of 27 degrees F for 3 hrs freeze the tree trunk and destroy the tree.
In 1895 there were commercial citrus groves in ALL of Florida. south Georgia and coastal SC. Winter temps began dropping and by 1960 the northernmost line of commercial citrus had retreated 150 miles south to Macintosh, Fl. The winter temp drops continued and by 1980 the northernmost line was 50 miles further south at Leesburg, Fl. Today the northernmost line of commercial citrus is Kissimmee, Fl.
Over the past 122 years winter temps in FL have dropped and commercial citrus parallels this drop in temps.
There ain't no global warming in the Sunshine State.

 

[palerider]

Citrus is an important ag business and the fruit is cold sensitive. Temps of 30 degrees F for 3 hours freeze the fruit and ruin the crop. Temps of 27 degrees F for 3 hrs freeze the tree trunk and destroy the tree.
In 1895 there were commercial citrus groves in ALL of Florida. south Georgia and coastal SC. Winter temps began dropping and by 1960 the northernmost line of commercial citrus had retreated 150 miles south to Macintosh, Fl. The winter temp drops continued and by 1980 the northernmost line was 50 miles further south at Leesburg, Fl. Today the northernmost line of commercial citrus is Kissimmee, Fl.
Over the past 122 years winter temps in FL have dropped and commercial citrus parallels this drop in temps.
There ain't no global warming in the Sunshine State.

Pretty much in line with the CRN temperature network. It is a state of the art, triple redundant network of instruments placed so pristinely that no adjustment is required. It covers the US and has shown a cooling trend since it went online. Interesting to note that the GISS, and NOAA, and the rest of the global data base show the US warming at the same rate as the rest of the world...A thinking person would wonder if the CRN covered the globe, if it might not show the same discrepancy in the "adjustments" made to the raw data.

It is certainly true that if you look at individual regions across the globe, most don't show any warming at all...and a fair number show cooling. "Global" warming only shows up in the highly massaged global data base...and published research has demonstrated that most of the claimed warming claimed since the end of the 1990's has been the result of data manipulation.

 

[dogtowner]

Better crank up those SUVS and coal fired power plants or no more OJ !
/scarcasm

 

[palerider]

Better crank up those SUVS and coal fired power plants or no more OJ !
/scarcasm

Wish I could find a coal fired prius so that I could do my part...any idea where I might get a line on one?