# The Profound Junk Science of Climate



## excalibur (Nov 30, 2021)

And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.


*Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.

The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.

...

Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.

A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.

One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.

...*​









						The Profound Junk Science of Climate
					

Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond...




					www.americanthinker.com


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Nov 30, 2021)

excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.
> 
> 
> *Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.*​​*The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.*​​*...*​​*Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.*​​*A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.*​​*One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.*​​*...*​
> ...





excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.
> 
> 
> *Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.*​​*The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.*​​*...*​​*Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.*​​*A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.*​​*One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.*​​*...*​
> ...


*The Unabomber:  The Psychoses of a Theoretical Mathematician*

Despite their GPAs, eco-nerds aren't really intelligent.  Their escapist theories, based on the childish way they worshiped the professors who gave them those grades, are simplistically designed to be most attractive to those who have a hard time dealing with the complexities of anything real.  They even create models of their fantasies.  They are thrilled by all the scare stories about the catastrophes that will occur if they don't get their way, right away. Weakling misfits, they are driven by a desperate desire to be comic-book superheroes who save the world from those "evil practical people."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 30, 2021)

But.......12 years!!!


----------



## Crepitus (Nov 30, 2021)

excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.
> 
> 
> *Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.*​​*The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.*​​*...*​​*Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.*​​*A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.*​​*One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.*​​*...*​
> ...


So all the extra heat is just in your head?


----------



## JoeMoma (Nov 30, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> But.......12 years!!!


How many of those 12 years have already passed.  Aren't we down to 10 or 9 years by now?


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 1, 2021)

excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.



Horsefeathers ... there was honest 12-year-old-little-boy glee when these new fangled super fast computers came along ... once we hit megaflops, the die were cast ... why shouldn't we try to model fluid behavior? ... c'mon now, what does your own inner 12-year-old-little-boy say? ... 

It's the adults that screwed everything up ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 1, 2021)

excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.
> 
> 
> *Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.*​​*The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.*​​*...*​​*Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.*​​*A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.*​​*One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.*​​*...*​
> ...


Belongs in the conspiracy theory section, not the science section.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 3, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> So all the extra heat is just in your head?


That "extra heat" isn't that much and is cyclic, along with the "extra cold";

*Thing is, it is "climate change", and it's a rather cycling process and something largely out of human influence/control (unless we set off all those nuclear weapons that is).  These charts should give some perspective.  This first one showing on the scale of the past 2.4 billion years (just over half the age of our planet);







Here is the time scale from when humans appear, depending on source of science claims, that would be between 200-300,000 years ago.







Here is an even closer and smaller time scale, covering just the past @5,000 years;







And just to give a hint of what Earth looked like about 15-16,000 years ago before the last major Ice Age melted;


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> That "extra heat" isn't that much and is cyclic, along with the "extra cold";
> 
> *Thing is, it is "climate change", and it's a rather cycling process and something largely out of human influence/control (unless we set off all those nuclear weapons that is).  These charts should give some perspective.  This first one showing on the scale of the past 2.4 billion years (just over half the age of our planet);
> 
> ...


Should be moved to Rubber Room


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Should be moved to Rubber Room


That is where ACC and AGW belong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> That is where ACC and AGW belong.


That is where uneducated slobs who think they have outsmarted experts belong.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is where uneducated slobs who think they have outsmarted experts belong.


So-called "educated" and "experts" are the one's whom produced the data used to make those charts/graphs I presented.

Would seem your the sort whom thought politician Al Gore was "educated" and an "expert" on ACC and AGW.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> So-called "educated" and "experts" are the one's whom produced the data used to make those charts/graphs I presented.
> 
> Would seem your the sort whom thought politician Al Gore was "educated" and an "expert" on ACC and AGW.


You mean, the ones you lied about. Also, your implication that they labor under the ignorance  of their own life's work makes you look like  lobotomized moron.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 3, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> That "extra heat" isn't that much and is cyclic, along with the "extra cold";
> 
> *Thing is, it is "climate change", and it's a rather cycling process and something largely out of human influence/control (unless we set off all those nuclear weapons that is).  These charts should give some perspective.  This first one showing on the scale of the past 2.4 billion years (just over half the age of our planet);
> 
> ...


Lol @ "extra cold".

No one with any actual understanding of climate would say anything like that.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Lol @ "extra cold".
> 
> No one with any actual understanding of climate would say anything like that.


Pretty sure he was being facetious.  He knows more about the earth's climate than you do.  He's actually studied the subject.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> So all the extra heat is just in your head?




Where's the extra heat?  Provide factual evidence it exists.


----------



## ding (Dec 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You mean, the ones you lied about. Also, your implication that they labor under the ignorance  of their own life's work makes you look like  lobotomized moron.


Given that previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2, their ignorance of actual climate data is fair game.


----------



## westwall (Dec 3, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Horsefeathers ... there was honest 12-year-old-little-boy glee when these new fangled super fast computers came along ... once we hit megaflops, the die were cast ... why shouldn't we try to model fluid behavior? ... c'mon now, what does your own inner 12-year-old-little-boy say? ...
> 
> It's the adults that screwed everything up ...





No, the models themselves simply aren't that good.

Good models, like those the F1 teams use, cost millions of dollars, and they have a success rate of less than 1 tenth, of one percent.


----------



## surada (Dec 3, 2021)

excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.
> 
> 
> *Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.
> ...



Yeah.. They have 12 inches of snow and 100 mph winds in Hawaii.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 3, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Belongs in the conspiracy theory section, not the science section.


Says the chap whom when we click on his username and go to his "Profile" page provides no useful information on his credentials and validity to be other than another "username" with no credibility or knowledge on the subject.

Hence why should we consider you anything other than;


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 3, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Lol @ "extra cold".
> 
> No one with any actual understanding of climate would say anything like that.


Nor would they say anything like "extra heat".

Like another troll here you are in this category;


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> Where's the extra heat?  Provide factual evidence it exists.


You must be looking for a climate scientist. I canprovide some email contacts for you.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 4, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Nor would they say anything like "extra heat".
> 
> Like another troll here you are in this category;


Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.

Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.  

Extra cold isn't.  It's a lack of heat.

You're just another climate denying whack-job pretending to be educated.  And you've got the nerve to call me a troll.


----------



## westwall (Dec 4, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.
> 
> Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.
> 
> ...





Then provide evidence it exists.

Not opinion, but evidence.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 4, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.
> 
> Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.
> 
> ...



The Law of Conservation of Pixie Dust ... all the extra heat must be balanced against extra cold ... I'm sorry but that's how magic works ... sacrifice a token, gain +1/+1 until end-of-turn ...


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You must be looking for a climate scientist. I canprovide some email contacts for you.


Maybe you can ask them why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 4, 2021)

ding said:


> Maybe you can ask them why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.
> 
> View attachment 571849


Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.


Just curious why the planet isn't warmer than previous interglacial cycles when our CO2 is so much higher than previous interglacial cycles.

You aren't curious about that?


----------



## ding (Dec 4, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.


You are the guy that was arguing if there is more of a greenhouse gas it will be warmer, right?


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Just curious why the planet isn't warmer than previous interglacial cycles when our CO2 is so much higher than previous interglacial cycles.
> 
> You aren't curious about that?


He doesn't understand it enough to be curious.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 5, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics
> knows that bullshit.
> 
> Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.
> ...


And "Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics" would know that one part retaining a couple degrees of heat can't transfer that equally to 2,499 other parts.

I'm not denying "climate change" ~ Natural; only the unproven hypothesis of human activity (anthropogenic) being a major driver of such in form of "global warming", based on slight increase of CO2.

FWIW, most of the Cosmos is very cold, heat is rather rare.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 5, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.


You're the one with the goofy true believer fetish.
FYI, not all "climate scientists" endorse ACC/AGW, especially if they paychecks don't require them to.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 5, 2021)

excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.
> 
> 
> *Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.
> ...



One day it will eventually dawn  on you lumps that its a fact. It's like the stolen election. Eventually you realised you were wrong.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 5, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> one part retaining a couple degrees of heat can't transfer that equally to 2,499 other parts.


When has anyone claimed that?


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> One day it will eventually dawn  on you lumps that its a fact. It's like the stolen election. Eventually you realised you were wrong.


When you can tell me why we shouldn't expect increasing temperatures when our present temperature is still 2C below the peak temperature of previous interglacial cycles, let me know.

When you can show me an experiment that quantified the radiative forcing of CO2 increasing from 300 ppm to 420 ppm, let me know.

When you can ex[plain to me why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less CO2 than today, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet, let me know.

When you can tell me why the southern hemisphere has a higher temperature threshold for extensive continental glaciation than the northern hemisphere does, let me know.

When you can tell me why the warmest global temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the most sunshine, let me know.

When you can tell me why the coldest average temperatures occur when the northern hemisphere receives the least sun light, let me know.

When you can tell me why the planet experienced increased climate fluctuations and environmental uncertainty after it transitioned from a greenhouse world to an icehouse world, let me know.

Because until YOU can answer these questions you don't know jack shit about the earth's climate. And you will never understand why I question the psuedo-science that is masquerading as science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 5, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> FYI, not all "climate scientists" endorse ACC/AGW


All working climate scientists? Yes they do. They spend their days trying to devise ways to prove it wrong. That's what every test is. Every model. They are in agreement because of where the evidence goes. They are not burdened by your baseless fetishes. 

And your "curioisty" is not a substitute for actual education and experience. No, you uneducated slobs have not outsmarted the global scientific community with your Google searches. Sorry. If it were any other scientific topic you did not have a political and ideological hard on for, you would easily see how embarrassing your behavior is. But your fetishes have handicapped your brains.


----------



## ding (Dec 5, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I canprovide some email contacts for you.





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Her email: solos@mit.edu



Should I tell her that you sent me?


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 5, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> When has anyone claimed that?


That is the basis of Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change = ACC and/or Anthropogenic Global Warming = AGW.  Basically that the shift in atmospheric average CO2 levels from about 280ppm (parts per million) around 1880 up to about 420ppm current timeline is the primary cause of global warming form of climate change and this increase is due entirely to human activity - industry, transport, etc. using hydro-carbon("fossil") fuel/resources consumption.

Rounding off the numbers for easy computation, go with 400ppm of CO2 and that can be expressed in basic (K-12) math as 400/1,000,000 which if you recall lessons in fractions from about 5-8th grade can be reduced down to 1/2,500.  Or, CO2 is one part of the atmosphere for every 2,499 other parts which are nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.  BTW, this is dry atmosphere, discounting the water (H2O) vapor content.








						Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So . . . the false hypothesis of ACC/AGW is that the 50% increase in CO2 from the 1880 level of about 280ppm up to about 420ppm over the past century and a half of human industrialization and "fossil" fuel use is the primary(major~only) case for the apparent increase in average annual global temperatures.

Therefore there is an emergency or critical condition that requires rapid reduction in human caused CO2 emissions, combined with urgent efforts to reduce the level of CO2 so that the Earth looses it's "fever"(~Al Gore) and doesn't "burn up", etc. ad nausium  nonsense.

If your grasp on basic science and math doesn't understand this, most local schools, community colleges also, offer remedial courses for those whom didn't learn this back in their K-12 days.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 5, 2021)

ding said:


> Maybe you can ask them why previous interglacial cycles were 2C warmer than today with 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2.
> 
> View attachment 571849


This one also helps give perspective;


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 5, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You must be looking for a climate scientist. I canprovide some email contacts for you.


Don't need your propagandist contacts.

This one is more valid and accurate;
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology, 
     Western Washington University




__





						Home | Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor of Geology| WWU
					






					myweb.wwu.edu


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 6, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> One day it will eventually dawn  on you lumps that its a fact. It's like the stolen election. Eventually you realised you were wrong.


One day it might dawn on you (Loonie Leftist/psuedo-liberals/socialists-communists/anti West Civ) dimwits that we "lumps" don't deny NATURAL Climate Change producing slight NATURAL Global Warming, which are FACT going back to the start of this planet and it's hydrosphere, and resulting biosphere. What we contest and are skeptical about is the unproven and false claim that current trends of the past century and a half of slight average, annual, global warming are mostly to solely the result of human activities.

This is the huge PROBLEM with your sort of idiots, in that you can't, or won't, be precise in language and terms and repeatedly display gross ignorance on basic science and math regards the ever flux and change of global climates.

BTW, repeated evidence of ballot/voter irregularities from several states suggest either election fraud, or more than half the voters of this nation having gone further stupid to elect the puppet dolts Biden/Harris.  Neither prospect is very encouraging regards the future of our nation or the preservation of the Republic.


----------



## Colin norris (Dec 6, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> One day it might dawn on you (Loonie Leftist/psuedo-liberals/socialists-communists/anti West Civ) dimwits that we "lumps" don't deny NATURAL Climate Change producing slight NATURAL Global Warming, which are FACT going back to the start of this planet and it's hydrosphere, and resulting biosphere. What we contest and are skeptical about is the unproven and false claim that current trends of the past century and a half of slight average, annual, global warming are mostly to solely the result of human activities.
> 
> This is the huge PROBLEM with your sort of idiots, in that you can't, or won't, be precise in language and terms and repeatedly display gross ignorance on basic science and math regards the ever flux and change of global climates.
> 
> BTW, repeated evidence of ballot/voter irregularities from several states suggest either election fraud, or more than half the voters of this nation having gone further stupid to elect the puppet dolts Biden/Harris.  Neither prospect is very encouraging regards the future of our nation or the preservation of the Republic.



Yeah sure.  Heard it all before comrade. 
Rave on like a petulant child.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> All working climate scientists? Yes they do. They spend their days trying to devise ways to prove it wrong. That's what every test is. Every model. They are in agreement because of where the evidence goes. They are not burdened by your baseless fetishes.
> 
> And your "curioisty" is not a substitute for actual education and experience. No, you uneducated slobs have not outsmarted the global scientific community with your Google searches. Sorry. If it were any other scientific topic you did not have a political and ideological hard on for, you would easily see how embarrassing your behavior is. But your fetishes have handicapped your brains.


As I've begun to show and you fail to document/substantiate, not "ALL" "working climate scientists" are supporters of the ACC/AGW hypothesis.  Only those whom are chasing the funding to "prove the case for", which is what the majority of funding is available to support/provide.

The "baseless fetishes" come from likes of you whom fail to provide supporting sources and documentation to your propagandist (political based) claims in support of an unproven hypothesis, and subjective and stacked "evidence" to tailor support this false hypothesis.

"Education" equals lots of money and time spent on tuition and class attendance, but is seldom proof of real knowledge or grasp of a subject.  Just the ability to pass tests and memorizes the needed class lectures/notes.  Result is programmed  and handicapped "brains" prepared to comply with Dogma that dominates the system.

Unfortunately, ACC/AGW does not remain a merely academic debate topic since it's advocates push for social, economic, industrial, technological reforms and 'adjustments' that would undermine the world's economic~political~social systems.  Hence the delusional concepts of ACC/AGW have become very political and when there are electable candidates whom run for offices while supporting ACC/AGW, it's a duty of the citizens/voters to be informed and educated and those whom would mislead us.

I'd wager your grasp of basic science/chemistry is such that you'd mix bleach and ammonia in effort to make a better home-brew cleaning solution. You display as another fail of the K-12 education system (though admittedly that system has been failing itself now for a few decades).


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 6, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> So all the extra heat is just in your head?


The imaginary heat trapped in the deep ocean?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 6, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe YOU can ask them. I am not the one with a goofy denier fetish. But you won't. Not ever. Because you know what will happen to you, if you try to challenge a climate scientist. Same thing that would happen to any uneducated slob who thinks he has outsmarted the experts.


A climate "scientists" has never done any actual science


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 6, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Don't need your propagandist contacts.


You won't contact any climate scientests. Not sure who you think you are fooling, ya uneducated slob. .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 6, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> A climate "scientists" has never done any actual science


Haha, poor little Francis REALLY needs some attention.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 6, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> Any idiot with even the slightest understanding of thermodynamics knows that bullshit.
> 
> Extra heat is an actual, real, and possible thing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 6, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The imaginary heat trapped in the deep ocean?


How did you get it from the deep ocean into your head?


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 9, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You won't contact any climate scientests. Not sure who you think you are fooling, ya uneducated slob. .


Were you paying attention, you'd see I did so in post number 40.  Likely not your choice of course.

You could just toss out your choice propagandists, but for those looking, try here;








						List of climate scientists - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




One might want some basis of what they are claiming to be about;








						Climatology - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I'm sure your selection includes these;


----------



## Quasar44 (Dec 9, 2021)

excalibur 
There is a slight global warning trend that cannot be denied
This can be proven and has


----------



## james bond (Dec 10, 2021)

We're not getting enough rain where I live in Cali.  We have too many days when it looks like rain, but it doesn't.  Enough days like this in the fall/winter, shortage of water, and you believe its climate change.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

excalibur said:


> And it has always been junk science and lies. It is all for power and money, that is all.
> 
> 
> *Climate change prophecy hangs its hat on computer climate models. The models have gigantic problems. According to Kevin Trenberth, once in charge of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, “[None of the] models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate [of the Earth].” The models can’t properly model the Earth’s climate, but we are supposed to believe that, if carbon dioxide has a certain effect on the imaginary Earths of the many models it will have the same effect on the real earth.*​​*The climate models are an exemplary representation of confirmation bias, the psychological tendency to suspend one’s critical facilities in favor of welcoming what one expects or desires. Climate scientists can manipulate numerous adjustable parameters in the models that can be changed to tune a model to give a “good” result. Technically, a good result would be that the climate model output can match past climate history. But that good result competes with another kind of good result. That other good result is a prediction of a climate catastrophe. That sort of “good” result has elevated the social and financial status of climate science into the stratosphere.*​​*...*​​*Testing a model against past history and assuming that it will then predict the future is a methodology that invites failure. The failure starts when the modeler adds more adjustable parameters to enhance the model. At some point, one should ask if we are fitting a model or doing simple curve fitting. If the model has degenerated into curve fitting, it very likely won’t have serious predictive capability.*​​*A strong indicator that climate models are well into the curve fitting regime is the use of ensembles of models. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) averages together numerous models (an ensemble), in order to make a projection of the future. Asked why they do this rather than try to pick the best model, they say that the ensemble method works better. Why would averaging worse models with the best model make the average better than the best? This is contrary to common sense. But according to the mathematics of curve fitting, if different methods of fitting the same (multidimensional) data are used, and each method is independent but imperfect, averaging together the fits will indeed give a better result. It works better because there is a mathematical artifact coming from having too many adjustable parameters that allow the model to fit nearly anything.*​​*One may not be surprised that the various models disagree dramatically, one with another, about the Earth’s climate, including how big the supposed global warming catastrophe will be. But no model, except perhaps one from Russia, denies the future catastrophe.*​​*...*​
> ...



It's a complicated issue. Clearly something is happening, but what is it?

For me "climate change" is the wrong title for this issue.

It should be "living in balance with our world" because we simply don't know the impact we're having on the world, and when we find out, it might be too late to stop it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> We're not getting enough rain where I live in Cali.  We have too many days when it looks like rain, but it doesn't.  Enough days like this in the fall/winter, shortage of water, and you believe its climate change.



I guess if you went to the equator during an ice age, it'd be hot. Or you got to the Antarctic in the hottest year in 100,000 years and it's still cold.


----------



## james bond (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> I guess if you went to the equator during an ice age, it'd be hot. Or you got to the Antarctic in the hottest year in 100,000 years and it's still cold.


Not exactly what I'm talking about.  You would be living at the equator and know what hot is.  Now, you're still living there and expecting the same type of heat as the days/nights look and feel the same, but instead of hot, you'd get warm.  The days/nights look the same, but the results are different.  Here, it'll look and feel like rain, but we'll get only the briefest rain.  I don't mean sprinkles either that become rain.  It just rains, but oh so briefly.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> We're not getting enough rain where I live in Cali.  We have too many days when it looks like rain, but it doesn't.  Enough days like this in the fall/winter, shortage of water, and you believe its climate change.



This is just weather change ... and weather is supposed to change ... on average every three days ... the sciency egg-head term for this period is the "synoptic period" ... 

California gets _very_ dry on a regular basis ... and that's considered normal for her _current_ climate ... of course you want to believe this will change, that rainfall will become more regular in both time and space ... but that's not how meteorology works ... 

California's weather has been exactly as expected this past year ... in every way ... the more important question is why are you complaining? ...

Sioux Falls, SD: "Snow. The snow could be heavy at times.  High near 30. Northeast wind around 15 mph, with gusts as high as 25 mph.  Chance of precipitation is 100%. Total daytime snow accumulation of around 8 inches."


----------



## james bond (Dec 10, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> This is just weather change ... and weather is supposed to change ... on average every three days ... the sciency egg-head term for this period is the "synoptic period" ...
> 
> California gets _very_ dry on a regular basis ... and that's considered normal for her _current_ climate ... of course you want to believe this will change, that rainfall will become more regular in both time and space ... but that's not how meteorology works ...
> 
> ...


Even with weather change, we have a pattern and there will be rainy days and nights.  With this, it's like we get the rainy days and nights look and feel, but no rain.  It tells me that something has changed.

It would be like rain on a clear, sunny day.  We would expect warm, sunny weather, but it's not.  You and others should be experiencing this as you know the weather in your local area the best.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 10, 2021)

Here up above you in the PNW, we've a month plus of "above average" rainfall (snow in the mountains=higher elevations) but nothing out of range of what has occurred over past several decades.

Climate is an average of at least 30 years measure, but the longer the timescale used, the more accurate such MIGHT be.

In past 30-50 years have there been similar years of "short" precipitation in your part of California?


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> It's a complicated issue. Clearly something is happening, but what is it?
> 
> For me "climate change" is the wrong title for this issue.
> 
> It should be "living in balance with our world" because we simply don't know the impact we're having on the world, and when we find out, it might be too late to stop it.


We've been in an ice age for almost 3 million years.   You should worry more about extensive northern hemisphere continental glaciation.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 10, 2021)

james bond said:


> Even with weather change, we have a pattern and there will be rainy days and nights.  With this, it's like we get the rainy days and nights look and feel, but no rain.  It tells me that something has changed.
> 
> It would be like rain on a clear, sunny day.  We would expect warm, sunny weather, but it's not.  You and others should be experiencing this as you know the weather in your local area the best.



This is all dynamics ... the push and pull of the high and low pressure systems ... nothing unusual about what you describe ...



Stryder50 said:


> Here up above you in the PNW, we've a month plus of "above average" rainfall (snow in the mountains=higher elevations) but nothing out of range of what has occurred over past several decades.
> 
> Climate is an average of at least 30 years measure, but the longer the timescale used, the more accurate such MIGHT be.
> 
> In past 30-50 years have there been similar years of "short" precipitation in your part of California?



The first well documented drought in California was in the 1880's ... wiped out the cattle business that was thriving at the time ...
The drought of the 1920's wiped out the fledgling wheat business ... but Them the People got smart and hardened their water systems ...
Thus, the drought in the 1970's didn't actually wreak the economy ... we had enough water stored to get us by ... (barely) ...
The drought in the 2010's wasn't any worse than the one I lived through in the late 1970's ... the difference was so much more land planted into agriculture ... where the almond and pistachio trees stood naked and dead in 2012 was open prairie in 1979 ...

There's reason to believe this has been occurring since long before Europeans arrived ... long before humans starting burning much coal ...

I ask again ... why are you complaining? ... I had jack frost on my lawn this morning ... outrageously cold ... and you bitch about it being sunny and warm ... [sniff] ... some nerve ...


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> This is all dynamics ... the push and pull of the high and low pressure systems ... nothing unusual about what you describe ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And every single one of them was caused by CO2, dadgummit.  CO2 is the reason the planet is spinning the wrong way, it's why people are lactose intolerant, male pattern baldness and teenage pregnancies.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 10, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> It's a complicated issue. Clearly something is happening, but what is it?


Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

Just yesterday CO2 made me stump my big toe.


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?


Will they be able to tell me why the planet is 2C colder than previous interglacial cycles when we have 120 ppm more CO2 than previous interglacial cycles?

Because you sure as hell couldn't.


----------



## ding (Dec 10, 2021)

Someone told me that it was as simple as if there is more green house gas their will be hotter temperatures.

Hmmmm... that doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?



Have you read the IPCC report? ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 10, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Have you read the IPCC report? ...


Yes, the general stuff. Like the headline summary for policy makers.  You don't have to get into the weeds to see the state of the science on climate change.

So, gonna check it out?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 10, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why not ask the experts and read the IPCC report?



Yeah, let's have a conversation and every time someone asks a question say "speak to someone else"

Also I'm not sure your report will answer my question, but you're free to quote that report if you think I'm wrong.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> And every single one of them was caused by CO2, dadgummit.  CO2 is the reason the planet is spinning the wrong way, it's why people are lactose intolerant, male pattern baldness and teenage pregnancies.


CO2 drank all my beer.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You don't have to get into the weeds to see the state of the science on climate change.


Ummmmm, yeah... you kinda do have to get into the weeds to understand science.  Especially when YOU have simplified the science to more greenhouse gases equals warmer temperatures even though our present climate is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles and has 120 ppm more atmospheric CO2 than previous interglacial cycles.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, the general stuff. Like the headline summary for policy makers.  You don't have to get into the weeds to see the state of the science on climate change.
> 
> So, gonna check it out?



Bullshit ... you're lying now ... you have *NOT* read the IPCC report ... that son-of-a-bitch is seven times longer than the Holy Bible (= half the length of _The Wheel of Time_) ... you skimmed through and only read the parts that you already agreed with ... anything that worked against your prejudices is just "weeds" ... yeah, right ... 

This explains why you foolishly endorse a catastrophic future in violation of the Laws of Nature ... physical laws are just `weeds` ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

frigidweirdo said:


> Yeah, let's have a conversation and every time someone asks a question say "speak to someone else"


Not everytime. Stop being silly. You asked a question about the state of the science of a complicated topic being worked on by 100s of 1000s of scientists worldwide.

So you ask a nonscientist on a message board? Ask the scientists. Then discuss what they say.

What discussion did you want to have? Did you want the stranger to look this up for you?

Read the headline summary, it has general answers to those questions. Do you want me to post it?


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So you ask a nonscientist on a message board?



If you're admitting to being a non-scientist ... then could you kindly _shut-the-fuck-up_ during science discussions? ... or at least be a little more humble ... you're not a scientist, we don't expect you to know anything about energy ... or work performed ... or why gravity points straight up sometimes ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> If you're admitting to being a non-scientist ..


"If"

Anyone here who doesn't admit they are not a research scientist publishing and conducting research related to climate change is a liar. 

Including you. Show us your published research related to climate. Oh, you don't have any. 

I guess you will be shutting  the fuck up now, per your own advice. Bye!

Oh and look, so will everyone else. Bye losers!

/thread

Sorry guys, ReinyDays  makes the rules around here. RIP science section.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> If you're admitting to being a non-scientist ... then could you kindly _shut-the-fuck-up_ during science discussions? ... or at least be a little more humble ... you're not a scientist, we don't expect you to know anything about energy ... or work performed ... or why gravity points straight up sometimes ...


How fucking dumb. If you want to know what is going g on with climate science, you defer to climate scientists on the whole and the body of science on the whole. Even the most prolific climate scientist does this, as their own work encompasses only a tiny fraction of the mountains of mutually supportive research and evidence.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

I am not sure how you guys were raised, but no, you have not outsmarted the experts with your Google searches and blog puking.

Here is how this works:

You go to the expert panel to see what the body of science says about climate change.

If you want to know, for example, our best ideas of what this will mean for Sea levels, you go see what the oceanographers say.

If you want to hear our best ideas for what acidification of our oceans means for marine ecosystems,you go ask the biologists and the ecologists.

Then, discuss. You don't ask uneducated slobs on message boards and youtube quacks for competing hypotheses. Unless you are a fraud.

Very simple.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

Go over to a cosmology thread... funny, you don't see people citing youtubers and fringe scientists (who publish and conduct NO research) to dispute the distance to Andromeda, or the relativistic jets being tossed off by superlative black holes, or the basic ideas of star and planet formation.

"Sure, the world's scientists agree that gravity waves result from the collisions of massive objects in space. But look at this youtube video I found from some guy in Albania who says otherwise..."

Absurd.

But we see this in climate threads, because a fat guy with white hair named after a squirming lizard made this topic political 30 years ago.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Bullshit ... you're lying now ... you have *NOT* read the IPCC report .


Sure I have. In fact, just about any serious person interested in this topic has looked at it. They provide short summaries written specifically for laypeople like you.

The policymakers of the planet read it. But apparently you think you are either too good or too incapable to read it.

The fact that you have not looked at it or read their summaries should embarrass you a bit, since you seem so willing to discuss and criticize these items that appear in them. Do you just make them up as you go, then? You must.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "If"
> 
> Anyone here who doesn't admit they are not a research scientist publishing and conducting research related to climate change is a liar.
> 
> ...


I suspect ReinyDays has a PhD in a field that is related to climate.  Now would be a good time for you to stop talking.  Better for you to be silent and let us think you the fool than to speak and remove all doubt.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Go over to a cosmology thread... funny, you don't see people citing youtubers and fringe scientists (who publish and conduct NO research) to dispute the distance to Andromeda, or the relativistic jets being tossed off by superlative black holes, or the basic ideas of star and planet formation.
> 
> "Sure, the world's scientists agree that gravity waves result from the collisions of massive objects in space. But look at this youtube video I found from some guy in Albania who says otherwise..."
> 
> Absurd.


Did you even attend a community college?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> How fucking dumb. If you want to know what is going g on with climate science, you defer to climate scientists on the whole and the body of science on the whole. Even the most prolific climate scientist does this, as their own work encompasses only a tiny fraction of the mountains of mutually supportive research and evidence.


Can they tell me why our present temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater than previous interglacial cycles?

Can you explain why that is?


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 11, 2021)

[whimper whimper whimper] ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> [whimper whimper whimper] ...


Haha, that's what I thought.

It always ends this way. Keep in mind, this is from the non-climate scientist who thinks all non-scientists should shut the fuck up immediately. Apparently... so he can talk unopposed. How bizarre. 

Now back to the regularly scheduled blog puking and cherry picking.

Meanwhile, the science remains unchallenged.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> [whimper whimper whimper] ...


I'm just gonna say it... that dude is a massive douche bag.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meanwhile, the science remains unchallenged.


<ahem>

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.











Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Meanwhile, the science remains unchallenged.


<ahem>

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. *We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

When you guys grow tired of trying out your material at "Amateur Hour" on a message board, I can provide contacts for climate scientists.

I would enjoy seeing your correspondences with them. I will even give  you one of my email addresses  to CC or BCC on all of the emails.

You know, to keep you honest.

So, who is ready to graduate from the minors to the big leagues? Hit me up, when you're ready.


----------



## james bond (Dec 11, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> This is all dynamics ... the push and pull of the high and low pressure systems ... nothing unusual about what you describe ...


I assume we agree the dynamics are still the same, but the results are different.  What do you think could cause the results to be different?  Changes to the atmosphere?


----------



## Orangecat (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That is where uneducated slobs who think they have outsmarted experts belong.


Then get your stupid ass over there.


----------



## Orangecat (Dec 11, 2021)

surada said:


> They have 12 inches of snow


And that proves MMGW how?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

Orangecat said:


> Then get your stupid ass over there.


Ah yes, the ceiling of this troll's intellectual capability.


----------



## Orangecat (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, the general stuff. Like the headline summary for policy makers.


That's akin to reading the chapter titles of a book and saying you read the book, kid.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> When you guys grow tired of trying out your material at "Amateur Hour" on a message board, I can provide contacts for climate scientists.
> 
> I would enjoy seeing your correspondences with them. I will even give  you one of my email addresses  to CC or BCC on all of the emails.
> 
> ...


Why don't you ask them why our present temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater than the previous interglacial cycles and then get back to us?


----------



## Orangecat (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ah yes, the ceiling of this troll's intellectual capability.


You've been made a fool in this thread, fartfun. I'm just enjoying watching you flail around in your intellectual impotence.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Orangecat said:


> You've been made a fool in this thread, fartfun. I'm just enjoying watching you flail around in your intellectual impotence.


I think he is so use to being made to look like a fool he has grown accustomed to it.


----------



## Orangecat (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> I think he is so use to being made to look like a fool he has grown accustomed to it.


Foolishness of that magnitude has to have a genetic component as well as environmental, imho.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am not sure how you guys were raised, but no, you have not outsmarted the experts with your Google searches and blog puking.
> 
> Here is how this works:
> 
> ...


So you can't even explain your cult's dogma, except by saying TRUST THE HIGH PRIESTS.


----------



## james bond (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Show us your published research related to climate. Oh, you don't have any.


Here's mine.  Can I torture you into submission now?









						Emissions Gap Report 2021
					

With climate change intensifying and scientists warning that humanity is running out of time to limit global warming to 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels, 2021 has been a fraught year for the planet. The Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat Is On is the 12th edition in an annual series that...




					www.unep.org


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> When you guys grow tired of trying out your material at "Amateur Hour" on a message board, I can provide contacts for climate scientists.
> 
> I would enjoy seeing your correspondences with them. I will even give  you one of my email addresses  to CC or BCC on all of the emails.
> 
> ...


Here's an idea:  Why don't you write to some scientists whose interpretation of available data disputes AGW?

Or are you afraid of being exposed to heresy?


----------



## surada (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Why don't you ask them why our present temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater than the previous interglacial cycles and then get back to us?



Perhaps its misnamed.. when in fact its more about climate extremes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Why don't you ask them why our present temperature is 2C cooler than previous interglacial cycles when our atmospheric CO2 is 120 ppm greater than the previous interglacial cycles and then get back to us?


Why don't you? I am not your mommy.. Post the responses here, so we can laugh at you. I guess your confidence is an act you put on for your own benefit.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> Why don't you write to some scientists whose interpretation of available data disputes AGW?


Well that's stupid. Should I also write to some creationists and flat earthers, too? Those are your people. You go write to them. And then ask them why they only have a bunch of hot air, instead of publishing science. Thanks!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

Orangecat said:


> That's akin to reading the chapter titles of a book and saying you read the book, kid.


In the context of asking a general question about the state of the science? No dummy, it is a list of the answers. Son, I dont think you belong here.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why don't you? I am not your mommy.. Post the responses here, so we can laugh at you. I guess your confidence is an act you put on for your own benefit.


Because I already know the answer.  CO2 does not drive climate change and there is your proof.


----------



## Orangecat (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Son, I dont think you belong here.


You don't think at all, if your post history is any indication.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Because I already know the answer.


Yes, your stunted fantasy is fairly well self contained. Good for you. I expect this mindset, from religious goobers.

Of course, as usual, your statement is a lie, and the real reason is that you know you will be thoroughly embarrassed by the actual experts. You aren't fooling anyone.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yes, your stunted fantasy is fairly well self contained. Good for you. I expect this mindset, from religious goobers.
> 
> Of course, as usual, your statement is a lie, and the real reason is that you know you will be thoroughly embarrassed by the actual experts. You aren't fooling anyone.


How is it a lie?

I've given you like 50 chances to refute it and so far nothing but silence on your part.  Here's your big chance.  Lay it on me.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's stupid. Should I also write to some creationists and flat earthers, too? Those are your people. You go write to them. And then ask them why they only have a bunch of hot air, instead of publishing science. Thanks!


If you were interested in science, you'd seek a variety of views.

But you're a cultist.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Five buck says FortFun can't explain why our planet is 2C cooler with 120 ppm more CO2.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 11, 2021)

james bond said:


> I assume we agree the dynamics are still the same, but the results are different.  What do you think could cause the results to be different?  Changes to the atmosphere?



I'm not seeing any differences in results ... the wind still blows from the West right off the entire width of the Pacific Ocean ... the results are exactly the same as they were 1,000 years ago ... as they will be over the next 1,000 years ... California's climate won't change as long as she sits in the middle of that Westerly flow ...

ETA:  Maybe better to say the southern half of the Westerly flow ... CA runs from about 32º to 42º latitude? ... the temperate cell covers 30º to 60º on average ...


----------



## Flash (Dec 11, 2021)

Crepitus said:


> So all the extra heat is just in your head?


How do you know it is extra?


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm not seeing any differences in results ... the wind still blows from the West right off the entire width of the Pacific Ocean ... the results are exactly the same as they were 1,000 years ago ... as they will be over the next 1,000 years ... California's climate won't change as long as she sits in the middle of that Westerly flow ...
> 
> ETA:  Maybe better to say the southern half of the Westerly flow ... CA runs from about 32º to 42º latitude? ... the temperate cell covers 30º to 60º on average ...


Not to sidetrack your conversation ( which really means I am) but your post reminded me that you never hear any of the people who think man is irreversibly altering the earth's climate talk about why earth's climate is the way it is or why it changed in the past.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Not to sidetrack your conversation ( which really means I am) but your post reminded me that you never hear any of the people who think man is irreversibly altering the earth's climate talk about why earth's climate is the way it is or why it changed in the past.


Nor will they answer the question, "What is the correct temperature of the Earth?"


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> Nor will they answer the question, "What is the correct temperature of the Earth?"


Is there a correct temperature for the earth?  Hell, I want to know that answer.


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Is it just me or does FortFun remind anyone of a JW


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> religious goobers.


You have no idea how much that describes you, bro.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Is there a correct temperature for the earth?  Hell, I want to know that answer.


I have no idea.  And without an answer to that question, how can we know it's warming up too much?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> If you were interested in science, you'd seek a variety of views.


haha, a perfect illustration of your intellectual fraud.

yes, I should go talk to flat earthers and those who think disease is caused by demons. You know, your crowd.

because, if I don't, then I am just a big meanie that hurts Davee's fee-fees.

GTFOH


----------



## ding (Dec 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> I have no idea.  And without an answer to that question, how can we know it's warming up too much?


Considering that we are in the middle of a 3 million year ice age I would say the correct temperature is as far away as possible from the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.

Wouldn't you agree Fort Fun Indiana and Grumblenuts ?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 11, 2021)

daveman said:


> I have no idea.  And without an answer to that question, how can we know it's warming up too much?


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> haha, a perfect illustration of your intellectual fraud.
> 
> yes, I should go talk to flat earthers and those who think disease is caused by demons. You know, your crowd.
> 
> ...


Gosh, you sure do hate it when people criticize your religion.  

I never said you should talk to flat-earthers or religious fundamentalists.  That was your stupid idea.  

I said you should talk to scientists who have worked with the current data and concluded man has little contribution to climate change.  Your own closed-mindedness insists these scientists are the equivalent of flat-earthers.  

There is no way you can deny you're a cultist.


----------



## daveman (Dec 11, 2021)

ding said:


> Considering that we are in the middle of a 3 million year ice age I would say the correct temperature is as far away as possible from the threshold for extensive northern hemisphere glaciation.
> 
> Wouldn't you agree Fort Fun Indiana and Grumblenuts ?


Yeah, but you can't advocate for world socialism like that.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Dec 11, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not everytime. Stop being silly. You asked a question about the state of the science of a complicated topic being worked on by 100s of 1000s of scientists worldwide.
> 
> So you ask a nonscientist on a message board? Ask the scientists. Then discuss what they say.
> 
> ...



Yeah, great conversation..... not.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 12, 2021)

ding said:


> Not to sidetrack your conversation ( which really means I am) but your post reminded me that you never hear any of the people who think man is irreversibly altering the earth's climate talk about why earth's climate is the way it is or why it changed in the past.



Climate is average weather ... to learn why the climate is the way it is today means learning about weather and why the weather is the way it is ... and a lot of why the weather is the way it is has to do with how far we are from the oceans ... 

Those who think man is altering the climate generally don't know anything about weather ... even climatologist themselves divorce themselves from advanced meteorology ... the math is too difficult ... 

Sidetracking your sidetrack ... but if I've had to tell you this again, then you're still smoking to much pot ...


----------



## james bond (Dec 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm not seeing any differences in results ... the wind still blows from the West right off the entire width of the Pacific Ocean ... the results are exactly the same as they were 1,000 years ago ... as they will be over the next 1,000 years ... California's climate won't change as long as she sits in the middle of that Westerly flow ...
> 
> ETA:  Maybe better to say the southern half of the Westerly flow ... CA runs from about 32º to 42º latitude? ... the temperate cell covers 30º to 60º on average ...


Sounds like you are blind to the changes and are using nutty fairy tale logic to fit your wacko views.  No one has climate records from thousands of years ago nor do they have forecasts from thousands of years in the future.  Modern records go back a few hundred years.

We've had days over 20 yrs ago where a rainy forecast and looking day didn't produce rain, but those were the exceptions.  Today, most living in Cali can tell the difference and that those forecasts are more off or fewer than before.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2021)

Can't be any more "Carbon neutral" than 2020 and no effect on CO2.

Science = settled!

We have Consensus!


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Climate is average weather ... to learn why the climate is the way it is today means learning about weather and why the weather is the way it is ... and a lot of why the weather is the way it is has to do with how far we are from the oceans ...
> 
> Those who think man is altering the climate generally don't know anything about weather ... even climatologist themselves divorce themselves from advanced meteorology ... the math is too difficult ...
> 
> Sidetracking your sidetrack ... but if I've had to tell you this again, then you're still smoking to much pot ...



No, climate is not the average of weather.
Climate is the sum of the energy mechanisms effecting the surface of any particular part of the planet.
For example, since the planet core is liquid, a rotational axis shift is possible, causing massive climate change to localized areas of the surface.
Another thing that can effect climate is ellipse, nutation, and precession of the earth's orbit around the sun.
The intensity of the suns thermonuclear furnace also has cycles.
Etc.

Clearly the atmosphere retains heat.
If not for heat retention, the planet would be over 40 degrees colder, and there would be a much more drastic drop in temperature at night.
The degree of heat retention is dependent upon the gases in the atmosphere.
And we know CO2, methane, water vapor, etc. are all powerful greenhouse gases.
We know greenhouse are warmer because the frequency of the light energy is shifter by the glass, and that prevents as much energy leaving as enters.

And finally, we know the normal climate cycle of warming and ice age cooling is over 110,000 years long, as there have been over a dozen of these cycles recorded on ice cores, etc.  So we know where the earth should be in its current natural cycle.  It should slightly be in the early cooling phase.
But instead by doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, by adding over 5 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere for the last 100 years, we are initiating the start of an additional warming cycle, on top of the previous natural warming cycle.
That will produce a double warming that has not happened in hundreds of millions of years.


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sounds like you are blind to the changes and are using nutty fairy tale logic to fit your wacko views.  No one has climate records from thousands of years ago nor do they have forecasts from thousands of years in the future.  Modern records go back a few hundred years.
> 
> We've had days over 20 yrs ago where a rainy forecast and looking day didn't produce rain, but those were the exceptions.  Today, most living in Cali can tell the difference and that those forecasts are more off or fewer than before.



No, we have tree rings for records going back hundreds of years, but we also have ice cores to go back hundreds of thousands of years.
Forecasts have nothing to do with it.
That is an attempt to guess where air currents are going to move to and collide, which is very hard to do since the air masses are spinning.
Climate has nothing at all to do with weather.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Because I already know the answer. CO2 does not drive climate change and there is your proof.



The thing is, "climate" is one of the most complex systems on the planet.  Second only to evolution.  And any that claim to find a "magic silver bullet" to answer all things about it to me are nothing but snake oil salesmen.  There is no single answer, there can not be a single answer.

Because the "magic silver bullet" answer leaves some huge freaking holes when looked at logically.  Like "If CO2 drives climate change, what caused all those CO2 spikes before modern technology?"

Oh, that is just one, but it is a big one.  Me, I see a cycle, and there is no hard connection.  Sometimes the CO2 goes up or down and the temperature seems to follow.  But other times, the temperature goes up or down and the CO2 follows.  Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that there is no actual connection between the two, either one might follow the other, or even lead it.

And to be honest, I am much less worried about any CO2 levels than I am the rapid deforestation going on.  In fact, I actually believe that is a lot of the reason for increased CO2 levels because that is the mechanism that removes CO2 from the atmosphere.  And the way I ask "climate alarmists" about that and they almost dismiss that concern with hostility tells me that they really do not care about CO2 at all, they are pushing some agenda.

And even 20 years ago I was discussing things I knew 40 years ago, like albedo.  And it still fascinates me how often people that scream they know all about the climate do not even know what albedo is.  That shows they are just "one trick ponies", and really do not understand the topic at all.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> The thing is, "climate" is one of the most complex systems on the planet.  Second only to evolution.  And any that claim to find a "magic silver bullet" to answer all things about it to me are nothing but snake oil salesmen.  There is no single answer, there can not be a single answer.
> 
> Because the "magic silver bullet" answer leaves some huge freaking holes when looked at logically.  Like "If CO2 drives climate change, what caused all those CO2 spikes before modern technology?"
> 
> ...


Deforestation and the urban heat island effect are real.  It affects albedo, but they don't want to talk about that.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, climate is not the average of weather.
> Climate is the sum of the energy mechanisms effecting the surface of any particular part of the planet.
> For example, since the planet core is liquid, a rotational axis shift is possible, causing massive climate change to localized areas of the surface.
> Another thing that can effect climate is ellipse, nutation, and precession of the earth's orbit around the sun.
> ...


We've been in an ice age for almost 3 million years.  What you are calling an ice age is a glacial cycle.


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> The thing is, "climate" is one of the most complex systems on the planet.  Second only to evolution.  And any that claim to find a "magic silver bullet" to answer all things about it to me are nothing but snake oil salesmen.  There is no single answer, there can not be a single answer.
> 
> Because the "magic silver bullet" answer leaves some huge freaking holes when looked at logically.  Like "If CO2 drives climate change, what caused all those CO2 spikes before modern technology?"
> 
> ...



Wrong.
The fact warming can also increase CO2 by reducing the amount the oceans are able to dissolve, is not a contradiction to the fact CO2 in the outer atmosphere prevents heat from radiating back out into space.
Increase atmospheric CO2 definitely causes planetary heat retention.

So why are there ice age cooling and warming cycles before industrialization?
That is simple.
Plants absorb CO2.
That causes cooling.
Plants freeze, die, and release their carbon back to atmospheric CO2.
That causes warming.
That increases plant growth again.

Climate is not at all complex.
It is similar to "red skies at night, sailor's delight", even though that is about water vapor as a greenhouse gas.
If not for greenhouse gases, the whole planet would be 40 degrees colder, and nights could be about 30 degrees colder than days.

As for albedo, that is not yet a good factor, but only a bad one.
By that I mean the melting polar ice caps means less reflection, so more warming acceleration.
In the future, it may be a good factor, because once it gets warm enough to increase water vapor in the atmosphere, then we may have more opportunity for increased cloud cover that would reduce warming.
But do we really want to live with perpetual cloud cover?


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Deforestation and the urban heat island effect are real.  It affects albedo, but they don't want to talk about that.



Deforestation is a very big deal because eventually we will run out of O2 as well if we do not replace these plants.


----------



## ding (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Deforestation is a very big deal because eventually we will run out of O2 as well if we do not replace these plants.


Maybe in theory but practically speaking that's not likely.  But I can be convinced if you have some studies.


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> We've been in an ice age for almost 3 million years.  What you are calling an ice age is a glacial cycle.



I am no expert, but it is my opinion you are wrong about that.

{...
An *ice age* is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed _glacial periods_ (or, alternatively, _glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades_, or colloquially, _ice ages_), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called _interglacials_ or _interstadials_.[2]

In glaciology, _ice age_ implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres.[3] By this definition, Earth is currently in an interglacial period—the Holocene. The amount of anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted into Earth's oceans and atmosphere is predicted to prevent the next glacial period for the next 500,000 years, which otherwise would begin in around 50,000 years, and likely more glacial cycles after.[4][5][6]
...}








						Ice age - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

ding said:


> Maybe in theory but practically speaking that's not likely.  But I can be convinced if you have some studies.



How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?
Remember that at one time, the Earth's atmosphere was ammonia and methane, without any free oxygen at all.
It was only phyto bacteria and later phyto plankton that switched the Earth over to having free atmospheric oxygen at all.
It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Plants freeze, die, and release their carbon back to atmospheric CO2.



How much CO2 do frozen plants release?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> eventually we will run out of O2 as well if we do not replace these plants.



Oh no!!!!

How much oxygen do we have left? 

Where will it all go?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?
> Remember that at one time, the Earth's atmosphere was ammonia and methane, without any free oxygen at all.
> It was only phyto bacteria and later phyto plankton that switched the Earth over to having free atmospheric oxygen at all.
> It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.



*How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?*

Where is the oxygen going to go? 

*It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.*

We'd die of starvation much sooner.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Those who think man is altering the climate generally don't know anything about weather .


What is this hilarious bullshit? Every major Meteorological Society on Earth endorses the current scientific consensus on climate change.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is the oxygen going to go?


Where is all the oxygen in Venus's atmosphere?

It's a silly idea anyway. If all the plants died off, the human race would go extinct from starvation within a couple of generations.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is the oxygen going to go?



Not only that, but "plants" are actually only responsible for the production of between 20-50% of the oxygen we breathe.

Threads like this shows the extreme lack of science knowledge in a huge number of people.  We could literally sterilize all plants from the surface, and we will still be gaining oxygen.  Now where plants are important is that they sequester huge amounts of CO2, but that is something completely different.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Where is all the oxygen in Venus's atmosphere?



Can you show me any proof that Venus ever had an oxygen atmosphere?  Or any appreciable levels of oxygen?  Ever?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Can you show me any proof that Venus ever had an oxygen atmosphere?  Or any appreciable levels of oxygen?  Ever?


No to the first, yes to the second, in strict terms. 

So where is all the oxygen in Venus's atmosphere? It's a pretty easy question.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No to the first, yes to the second, in strict terms.
> 
> So where is all the oxygen in Venus's atmosphere? It's a pretty easy question.



Yes, there is none.  And there is no evidence there was ever any appreciable levels of oxygen on Venus.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Yes, there is none.


Oxygen? There is a ton of oxygen in Venus's atmosphere.

It wasn't supposed to be a trick question that I asked, but I guess it turned out that way.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Where is all the oxygen in Venus's atmosphere?



Will that happen to Earth if all the plants die?


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oxygen? There is a ton of oxygen in Venus's atmosphere.
> 
> It wasn't supposed to be a trick question that I asked, but I guess it turned out that way.



It is a lie and misleading question.

When discussing gasses legitimately and scientifically, you are actually discussing the compounds and not the chemical elements that compose them.

Therefore, there is no "carbon" in the atmosphere, and there is no "oxygen".  There is a compound composed of CO2, commonly called "Carbon Dioxide".

But CO2 is not "Oxygen and Carbon", there is no "Oxygen and carbon atmosphere" on Venus.  It is CO2.

If you even try to say otherwise, that is either a huge failure in understanding of science, lying, or simply being an idiot.  I will reserve which one I think it might be, but it is not a "trick question".  It is wrong no matter how it is phrased.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Will that happen to Earth if all the plants die?


I don't think so. Like the other poster mentioned,other things contribute oxygen to our oxygen cycle. Like our lithosphere.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Will that happen to Earth if all the plants die?



I have realized a debate with FFI is pointless.  He actually thinks an atmosphere with around 87% CO2 has oxygen in it because that is one of the elements of Carbon Dioxide.

And I suppose from that level of science understanding that they also scream that "Vaccines contain mercury!" because it does indeed have the element as part of  C9H9HgNaO2S, commonly known as "Thimerosal".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> It is a lie and misleading question.


You mean, you read it wrong and made assumptions.

And the question was right on target, considering the subtopic. Gett rid of the plants, and , indeed, more atmospheric oxygen would become bound up in CO2 instead of being free, molecular oxygen.

So there is no debate between us, here. You can try to invent one out of thin air, I suppose. Have fun.


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How much CO2 do frozen plants release?


All.


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Oh no!!!!
> 
> How much oxygen do we have left?
> 
> Where will it all go?


 Oxygen is very reactive, so normally is not free O2.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, we have tree rings for records going back hundreds of years, but we also have ice cores to go back hundreds of thousands of years.
> Forecasts have nothing to do with it.
> That is an attempt to guess where air currents are going to move to and collide, which is very hard to do since the air masses are spinning.
> Climate has nothing at all to do with weather.



Are these the same ice cores that show an 800 to 1,000 year lag between temperature and CO2?


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You mean, you read it wrong and made assumptions.
> 
> And the question was right on target, considering the subtopic. Gett rid of the planet, and , indeed, more atmospheric oxygen would become bound up in CO2 instead of being free, molecular oxygen.



Wait, what?  You are aware that makes absolutely no sense, right?

Get rid of the planet?  Well, at that point then literally you have no atmosphere, just some random gas floating freely in space.  There is nothing to bind with anything.

And are you even aware how rare "molecular oxygen" is in the known universe?  It almost never exists on it's own, and took many millions of years to "evolve" on our own planet.  There was absolutely no "free oxygen" on Earth originally, that is the result of millions of years of bacteria breaking down other compounds.  ANd quite literally, oxygen was their waste gas.  And it went on for long enough that we eventually had it build up.  But still at levels not much more than a trace gas.  Nitrogen is still the predominant gas in our atmosphere.

What, you actually believe that the oxygen in the atmosphere of Venus was actually "free oxygen" at one time, and became bound to CO2?

I am torn, maybe somebody can help me here.  Which of these should be my reaction?







or


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Not only that, but "plants" are actually only responsible for the production of between 20-50% of the oxygen we breathe.
> 
> Threads like this shows the extreme lack of science knowledge in a huge number of people.  We could literally sterilize all plants from the surface, and we will still be gaining oxygen.  Now where plants are important is that they sequester huge amounts of CO2, but that is something completely different.



Totally untrue.
Phyto plankton are plants you know.
All the free oxygen comes from only plants.  
Nothing else.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Get rid of the planet?


Typo. Read: plants


Mushroom said:


> And are you even aware how rare "molecular oxygen" is in the known universe?


Yes. Conditions have to be just right.


Mushroom said:


> What, you actually believe that the oxygen in the atmosphere of Venus was actually "free oxygen" at one time, and became bound to CO2?


No, I did not state or even imply that. But thanks for asking!


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are these the same ice cores that show an 800 to 1,000 year lag between temperature and CO2?



No, you have it wrong.
Global temp is dependent on space boundary CO2, and ice cores tend to confuse that with low level atmospheric CO2 increases from warming ocean water that holds less dissolved gases.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Typo. Read: plants



Plants, on Venus?






OK, now I am officially done with this.  We not only have jumped the track, the rails have been left behind, the train has dissolved into protomatter and Xenu is returning.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> All.



How?


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Plants, on Venus?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is not my conversation, but clearly he never said "plants on Venus".
He said get rid of the plants on earth and that would end all free O2.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Plants, on Venus?


No, I was referring to Earth. 

You misunderstood my comments. I have clarified. So, get mad or don't. Your problem.


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How?


As I said already, O2 is very reactive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> As I said already, O2 is very reactive.



You said dead, frozen plants release all their CO2.
How reactive is oxygen with dead frozen plants?


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said dead, frozen plants release all their CO2.
> How reactive is oxygen with dead frozen plants?



Generally it is microbes that accomplish most of decomposition.
And when it gets cold enough at night to kill plants, it does not stay that cold all day as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Generally it is microbes that accomplish most of decomposition.
> And when it gets cold enough at night to kill plants, it does not stay that cold all day as well.



*Generally it is microbes that accomplish most of decomposition.*

How well do microbes work on dead, frozen plants?

*And when it gets cold enough at night to kill plants, it does not stay that cold all day as well.*

So you're saying dead, warm plants decompose, not dead, frozen plants?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are these the same ice cores that show an 800 to 1,000 year lag between temperature and CO2?


Dang Francis. I have explained that to you before. When is the last time you learned ANYTHING?


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Generally it is microbes that accomplish most of decomposition.*
> 
> How well do microbes work on dead, frozen plants?
> 
> ...



What I am saying is that obviously when plants are too successful, they cause their own demise by cooling off the planet.
This is a 110,000 year long cycle, so it is not something that happens over night.
It is well known.
Have you never seen the dozen or more ice age cycles and interglacial warming periods?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Dang Francis. I have explained that to you before. When is the last time you learned ANYTHING?



^ No thought went into making the above rote, canned response.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ^ No thought went into making the above rote, canned response.


Actually, some thought ad work went into spoonfeeding you the explanation. But being  the dishonest little dummy you are, you were wasting  my time.


----------



## Rigby5 (Dec 13, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Are these the same ice cores that show an 800 to 1,000 year lag between temperature and CO2?



{...
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.



The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a “feedback”, much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn’t tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
...}








						RealClimate: What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
					

RealClimate: This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during...




					www.realclimate.org


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> What I am saying is that obviously when plants are too successful, they cause their own demise by cooling off the planet.
> This is a 110,000 year long cycle, so it is not something that happens over night.
> It is well known.
> Have you never seen the dozen or more ice age cycles and interglacial warming periods?



*What I am saying is that obviously when plants are too successful, they cause their own demise by cooling off the planet.*

You should have said that instead of saying dead, frozen plants give up all their CO2.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You should have said that instead of saying dead, frozen plants give up all their CO2.


He didn't, troll. You asked him how much CO2 frozen plants "give up", he answered,"All." You took it there. Your trolling does not belong in this section.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, I was referring to Earth.
> 
> You misunderstood my comments. I have clarified. So, get mad or don't. Your problem.



And this is what I responded to:



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Where is all the oxygen in Venus's atmosphere?



So OK, you can not even follow simple threads, got it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> And this is what I responded to:


Right, you made poor assumptions about that statement and missed the context. It happens.

But now you know what I meant, so you can stop crying about it immediately. Thanks!


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, you made poor assumptions about that statement and missed the context.



Really now.  SO tell us what happened to the oxygen in the atmosphere in Venus.  You are the one that made that claim, not me.

As I said, you are just randomly spinning in circles, and do not actually have any kind of logical thread at all.  Yet, somehow it is my fault.  And you still have not explained what happened to the oxygen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> SO tell us what happened to the oxygen in the atmosphere in Venus.


Why? Is your google broken, again?

My only point was that more of our atmosphere's current oxygen would end up bound up in CO2. It's not as if anyone was suggesting it would disappear.

That's twice I have had to explain this to you.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> My only point was that more of our atmosphere's current oxygen would end up bound up in CO2. It's not as if anyone was suggesting it would disappear.



Then why did you ask about Venus?  What does Venus have to do with any of that?  *You* are the one that brought that up, not me.

And still, that is not how it works.  What, somehow oxygen just magically bonds with carbon through...  magic?

YOu keep making all these claims, which have nothing to do with anything and not actually even trying to explain any of it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Then why did you ask about Venus?


Because it was a example of an atmosphere with lots of CO2 in it. 

Moving on...


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Because it was a example of an atmosphere with lots of CO2 in it.



Then explain this please.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oxygen? There is a ton of oxygen in Venus's atmosphere.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 13, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Then explain this please.


Hmm, already did. Moving on...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He didn't, troll. You asked him how much CO2 frozen plants "give up", he answered,"All." You took it there. Your trolling does not belong in this section.



_Plants freeze, die, and release their carbon back to atmospheric CO2.
That causes warming.
That increases plant growth again.






						The Profound Junk Science of Climate
					

haha, a perfect illustration of your intellectual fraud.  yes, I should go talk to flat earthers and those who think disease is caused by demons. You know, your crowd.  because, if I don't, then I am just a big meanie that hurts Davee's fee-fees.  GTFOH  Gosh, you sure do hate it when people...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



_
Are you upset that I asked him to clarify his claim?
Do you think frozen dead plants release all their CO2?


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 13, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hmm, already did. Moving on...



Actually, you never did.  And I do not expect you to either.

But thank you for playing John Snow.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I am no expert, but it is my opinion you are wrong about that.
> 
> {...
> An *ice age* is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed _glacial periods_ (or, alternatively, _glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades_, or colloquially, _ice ages_), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called _interglacials_ or _interstadials_.[2]
> ...


What you just posted said otherwise.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> How it it not inevitable that if we kill off enough oxygen producing plants, that we will all die from lack of oxygen?
> Remember that at one time, the Earth's atmosphere was ammonia and methane, without any free oxygen at all.
> It was only phyto bacteria and later phyto plankton that switched the Earth over to having free atmospheric oxygen at all.
> It would take a long time, about 53,000 years, but without plants replenishing the oxygen, eventually we all die.


Because deforestation does not necessarily mean killing off ALL plants.

95% of global deforestation occurs in *the tropics*. Brazil and Indonesia alone account for almost half. After long periods of forest clearance in the past, most of today's richest countries are increasing tree cover through afforestation.









						Deforestation and Forest Loss
					

Explore long-term changes in deforestation, and deforestation rates across the world today.




					ourworldindata.org


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 14, 2021)

james bond said:


> Sounds like you are blind to the changes and are using nutty fairy tale logic to fit your wacko views.  No one has climate records from thousands of years ago nor do they have forecasts from thousands of years in the future.  Modern records go back a few hundred years.
> 
> We've had days over 20 yrs ago where a rainy forecast and looking day didn't produce rain, but those were the exceptions.  Today, most living in Cali can tell the difference and that those forecasts are more off or fewer than before.



Let's see your empirical data that shows your point ... we have 100 years of data, please point to where you see any changes in precipitation rates ... we understand why California gets the weather she gets ... and why she has this climate of hers ... and these reasons start with her proximity to the Pacific Ocean ... and she has always been next to the Pacific Ocean ... || ...

I've been a student of California weather for almost 50 years now ... I know exactly what you're talking about ... it's normal, always has been, always will be ... it effect was really bad in the winter of 1976-77 ... which is well demonstrated in the precipitation data for that time period ...


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> 95% of global deforestation occurs in *the tropics*. Brazil and Indonesia alone account for almost half. After long periods of forest clearance in the past, most of today's richest countries are increasing tree cover through afforestation.



But still at a negative.  And trees are the most effective "carbon sink" there is, our planet has been using them as such for hundreds of millions of years.  Is how the Carboniferous era got its name after all.

And when they cut, they normally "slash and burn", releasing hundreds of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere.  It takes hundreds of years to grow such a tree and it has a lot of carbon trapped in it.  But only a few hours to burn it and release all that back into the atmosphere.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Let's see your empirical data that shows your point ... we have 100 years of data, please point to where you see any changes in precipitation rates ... we understand why California gets the weather she gets ... and why she has this climate of hers ... and these reasons start with her proximity to the Pacific Ocean ... and she has always been next to the Pacific Ocean ... || ...
> 
> I've been a student of California weather for almost 50 years now ... I know exactly what you're talking about ... it's normal, always has been, always will be ... it effect was really bad in the winter of 1976-77 ... which is well demonstrated in the precipitation data for that time period ...



California on average has a 7 year weather cycle.  6 years of dry hot weather, followed by a year of drenching monsoons.  It has been like that for thousands of years, and will continue following the same pattern.

Yet each time, the media goes crazy talking about 6 years of drought, then the damage from all the flooding caused by "global warming".  But the thing is, it is nothing new, it is just that for some reason people forget it each time.  It is the el niño - la niña cycle.  I first became aware of it in the early 1980's when an el niño cycle destroyed most of the piers in the LA area.  And almost like clockwork it has repeated every 7 years plus or minus a year or two.

The last one was just a few years ago when the state almost destroyed the Oroville Dam.  We were already having massive flooding, and more was to come because he had a heavy snowfall that year.  Yet because of "drought" they wanted all the water saved.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> But still at a negative.  And trees are the most effective "carbon sink" there is, our planet has been using them as such for hundreds of millions of years.  Is how the Carboniferous era got its name after all.
> 
> And when they cut, they normally "slash and burn", releasing hundreds of years of stored carbon into the atmosphere.  It takes hundreds of years to grow such a tree and it has a lot of carbon trapped in it.  But only a few hours to burn it and release all that back into the atmosphere.


If 94% of all CO2 is stored in the ocean wouldn't the ocean be the most effective carbon sink?

Plants respire all the time, whether it is dark or light. They photosynthesise only when they are in the light.


ConditionsPhotosynthesis v respirationOverall resultDarkRespiration but no photosynthesisOxygen taken in, carbon dioxide given outDim lightPhotosynthesis rate equals respiration rateNeither gas is taken in or given outBright lightPhotosynthesis rate greater than respiration rateCarbon dioxide taken in, oxygen given out


And deciduous plants pretty much give back the carbon they sequestered every year when they lose their leaves as all plants do when they die.   






						Photosynthesis and respiration in plants - Photosynthesis - KS3 Biology Revision - BBC Bitesize
					

Learn how plants make food using photosynthesis and how leaves adapt to do this with BBC Bitesize KS3 Science.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




As for it being a negative, you will have to take that up with Brazil, Indonesia and other countries in the tropics, right?  Because most of today's richest countries are increasing tree cover through afforestation.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> If 94% of all CO2 is stored in the ocean wouldn't the ocean be the most effective carbon sink?



Ahhh, but much of that was never "atmospheric carbon".  It was always either deep subsurface or geological carbon dioxide, and never part of the free atmosphere.

A key aspect of a "carbon sink" is that the CO2 is removed form the atmosphere.  The carbon in deep ocean was never part of the atmosphere (or if it was it was hundreds of millions of years ago).  It will remain there forever, not added to other than via things like undersea volcanoes.

And for another example, look no farther than Lake Nyos.  Which about 36 years ago killed over 1,700 people when a massive carbon dioxide release smothered everybody that lived near the lake.  But that carbon did not come from the atmosphere, it was volcanic.

And "deciduous plants" is really a vague term.  But the way you are phrasing it, they are not sinks at all.  Sinks are trees.  Massive living structures that can be made up of multiple tons of carbon, primarily pulled from the atmosphere.  When you compare the mass of a 100 year old oak tree, the leaves are a fraction of the weight of the wood core itself.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you upset that I asked him to clarify his claim?


No.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Actually, you never did.  And I do not expect you to either.
> 
> But thank you for playing John Snow.


I sure did. Stop being a little baby. You misunderstood me and read waaay too far into it. I have clarified. Get over it or don't. Your problem.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Ahhh, but much of that was never "atmospheric carbon". It was always either deep subsurface or geological carbon dioxide, and never part of the free atmosphere.


Do you have a link for that because I'm pretty sure that is false.  Have you ever heard of the azolla event? 






						The Ocean’s Carbon Balance
					

The amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean can take from the atmosphere is controlled by both natural cycles and human activity.




					earthobservatory.nasa.gov
				












						Azolla event - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






Mushroom said:


> The carbon in deep ocean was never part of the atmosphere (or if it was it was hundreds of millions of years ago). It will remain there forever, not added to other than via things like undersea volcanoes.


Again... do you have a link for that?



Mushroom said:


> And for another example, look no farther than Lake Nyos. Which about 36 years ago killed over 1,700 people when a massive carbon dioxide release smothered everybody that lived near the lake. But that carbon did not come from the atmosphere, it was volcanic.


And does not prove that the ocean containing 94% of the earth's CO2 got there from under water volcanos. 



Mushroom said:


> And "deciduous plants" is really a vague term. But the way you are phrasing it, they are not sinks at all. Sinks are trees. Massive living structures that can be made up of multiple tons of carbon, primarily pulled from the atmosphere. When you compare the mass of a 100 year old oak tree, the leaves are a fraction of the weight of the wood core itself.


Trees lose leaves, right?  Those leaves decompose, right? 

Actually the point I am making is that plants aren't the carbon sinks you think they are.  They do return CO2 back to the atmosphere just like the ocean can return CO2 back to the atmosphere.  They just have a different mechanism is all.  These are dynamic complex processes which are not as simple as you are trying to make them sound. 

Are you familiar with the seasonal fluctuation of CO2 and why it is more prevalent at northern latitudes than southern latitudes?  And have you ever done a material balance on the season fluctuation of CO2 and compared that to annual emissions? 



			https://cires.colorado.edu/outreach/sites/default/files/2020-03/Climate%20Resiliency%20HS5%20-%20StudentActivityGuideRef3.pdf


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> Do you have a link for that because I'm pretty sure that is false. Have you ever heard of the azolla event?



"Hypothesized" for one.  Second, it was not a sink of atmospheric carbon, but of plant material.  Plants sinking into water does not make water a "carbon sink".  No more than throwing a few thousand logs into a cave makes the cave a carbon sink.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You misunderstood me and read waaay too far into it



In other words you tried to lie as I was responding to exactly what you said.

But it's OK, I know you have no credibility so it no longer matters.  Thank you for making me realize that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Plants sinking into water does not make water a "carbon sink". No more than throwing a few thousand logs into a cave makes the cave a carbon sink.


I laughed


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> In other words you tried to lie as I was responding to exactly what you said.


Hmm, no, sorry. I don't know why your tiny little pecker is so hard over me, and I don't care. It was merely a flip comment to insinuate more oxygen would then become bound up in carbon dioxide. Nothing more. Anythinggbeyond that is your fetish and fantasy, and yours to struggle through. Don't ask again. Thanks.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

ding said:


> And does not prove that the ocean containing 94% of the earth's CO2 got there from under water volcanos.



Also, show me a reference showing it is "94% of global CO2", because I have never seen a reference give it anywhere even close to that figure.  At most, I think I have seen 25%.

And even then, most who actually read the research recognize that is not all and never has been "atmospheric CO2", but that the oceans have their own O2-CO2 cycle that is largely independent of what happens on the surface.

So here we have something interesting, in that you are asking me to confirm something that I myself do not even believe, and have never heard from a reputable source before.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It was merely a flip comment to insinuate more oxygen would then become bound up in carbon dioxide.



And it was a fail, because that is not how it works at all.  Oxygen does not just magically transform into CO2.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> And it was a fail, because that is not how it works at all.  Oxygen does not just magically transform into CO2.


I didn't imply that it would. Again, you are playing with dollies of your own invention.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 14, 2021)

Currently in California ... where there isn't a blizzard warning, there's a flood warning ...

Them people there just invent things to complain about ... what next, the sky isn't blue enough anymore? ...


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> "Hypothesized" for one.  Second, it was not a sink of atmospheric carbon, but of plant material.  Plants sinking into water does not make water a "carbon sink".  No more than throwing a few thousand logs into a cave makes the cave a carbon sink.


If you are talking about Azolla you are dead wrong on both counts.  It's how hydrocarbons got into the Arctic Circle.  Which is how I know about it.  

But nonetheless it is certainly more science than you presented for your assertion, right?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Ahhh, but much of that was never "atmospheric carbon". It was always either deep subsurface or geological carbon dioxide, and never part of the free atmosphere.


Do you have a link for that?


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Also, show me a reference showing it is "94% of global CO2", because I have never seen a reference give it anywhere even close to that figure. At most, I think I have seen 25%.


Seriously, bro, google is your friend.

"...approximately *93 percent* of the CO 2 is found in the oceans..."



			Carbon Dioxide in the Ocean  and Atmosphere - sea, depth, oceans, important, system, plants, marine, oxygen, human


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> And even then, most who actually read the research recognize that is not all and never has been "atmospheric CO2", but that the oceans have their own O2-CO2 cycle that is largely independent of what happens on the surface.


Dude, you thought the ocean contained 25% of the planet's CO2.  Are you sure you want to be arguing about most who actually read research?

For the third time.... do you have a link supporting your allegation that the CO2 in the ocean dfid not come from the atmosphere?

"...The ocean takes up carbon *dioxide through photosynthesis by plant-like organisms* (phytoplankton), as well as by simple chemistry: carbon dioxide dissolves in water. ... The new water takes up yet more carbon to match the atmosphere, while the old water carries the carbon it has captured into the ocean..."​​




						The Ocean’s Carbon Balance
					

The amount of carbon dioxide that the ocean can take from the atmosphere is controlled by both natural cycles and human activity.




					earthobservatory.nasa.gov


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> So here we have something interesting, in that you are asking me to confirm something that I myself do not even believe, and have never heard from a reputable source before.


You are the person alleging the CO2 in the ocean did not come from the atmosphere, right?

Then you are the right person.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

It's so bizarre to watch the armchair nonscientest denier goobers cite the work of the same scientists they then imply or outright state are frauds or incompetent. It's like the deniers have trouble with the concept of a coherent body of thought. Or maybe they all had traumatic brain injuries that cause them memory and reasoning problems.


----------



## ding (Dec 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's so bizarre to watch the armchair nonscientest denier goobers cite the work of the same scientists they then imply or outright state are frauds or incompetent. It's like the deniers have trouble with the concept of a coherent body of thought. Or maybe they all had traumatic brain injuries that cause them memory and reasoning problems.


What are you yammering about now?  

Are you a scientist?


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's so bizarre to watch the armchair nonscientest denier goobers cite the work of the same scientists they then imply or outright state are frauds or incompetent. It's like the deniers have trouble with the concept of a coherent body of thought. Or maybe they all had traumatic brain injuries that cause them memory and reasoning problems.



From the one that tried to talk about the oxygen on Venus?

The main issue with what I am saying and ding is the method of transmission.  And then the definition of what a "sink" is.  I am looking at this as a geologist, not sure how ding is looking at it.  When I talk about CO2, I am talking about atmospheric, not *all CO2*.  Because I am aware a huge amount (actually the majority it is suspected) has never been "atmospheric CO2" outside of maybe at about the time Thea struck Earth Mk. I.  And a lot of what we are discussing actually can change drastically, simply depending on how you are looking at it.

In reality, we are really not all that far apart, of course I doubt you understand most of what we have been discussing, so go ahead and laugh.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

ReinyDays said:


> Currently in California ... where there isn't a blizzard warning, there's a flood warning ...
> 
> Them people there just invent things to complain about ... what next, the sky isn't blue enough anymore?



Yep, pretty much.

Hell, want a good laugh?  Look up what they always report about Lake Oroville.



> California has descended deep into one of the worst droughts in its recorded history. And perhaps no single location shows more starkly how deep that really is than Lake Oroville, the state's second-largest reservoir and a crucial source of water supply for the state's farm and city water users alike.
> 
> San Francisco-based Getty Images photographer Justin Sullivan has been visiting the lake off and on since the driest days of our last severe drought, in 2014.











						Lake Oroville Shows the Shocking Face of California's Drought | KQED
					

A Northern California photographer documents how rapidly the state's second-largest reservoir has dwindled toward a record low.




					www.kqed.org
				




Of course, they also happen to report this over and over again every single year.



> A little more than a year ago, I went car camping to the very nice Loafer Creek Campground at Lake Oroville State Recreation Area. The lake, the main reservoir for the State Water Project and the second-largest California reservoir after Lake Shasta, was about 85 percent full at the time. If you were following the vagaries of the state's 2012-13 water season, you might have been a little troubled by the fact the rains had virtually ceased after the turn of the new year. What wasn't apparent during that March 27, 2013, visit to Lake Oroville was that the rains wouldn't return in the fall either, and that the lake would fall to just one-third full by January — low in any season, but especially alarming in that the reservoir levels here and virtually everywhere else across the state continued to decline at a time when they'd usually be filling up with runoff from fall and early-winter storms.











						California Drought Snapshot: Lake Oroville Revisited | KQED
					

Following the ups and downs of a key state reservoir and what they mean for the drought water supply.




					www.kqed.org
				




I actually lived in Oroville, this happened every damned year.

Oroville Dam was designed to capture snow melt and was primarily a flood control dam.  And each year, from around May until October it would dump out around 90% of its water.  Especially in the spring and fall as that was the times of the salmon runs and they needed greater flows to migrate.  And by October, the lake would be right back down to the original river.

And then from October when the rains start until early June when the spring runoff finishes, it would refill.  Often to the point where they were doing some huge releases so the dam will not overtop.  That is exactly the condition that caused it to almost collapse in 2017.  It had gone from the original river in October, to the water running over the top of the dam and eroding it away in February.  That is how damned fast the dam can go from empty to over 100% capacity.  And it is a balancing act between releasing enough water to keep the fish population downstream thriving and migrating, releasing enough water for irrigation and for people to drink, and not releasing it so fast that it floods.

The largest single cause of "drought" in California is simply that there are too damned many people in the state, that are taking all of the water and leaving damned little for farmers and everything else.  This literally is a "man made drought".

Yet, every single year like clockwork the press will scream about it being "drought" and "global warming", even though it has happened the exact same way every single year since the dam was built.  And all of us that live in the area laugh our asses off over that, because the stupid "big city" people do not have a freaking clue.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> From the one that tried to talk about the oxygen on Venus?


Yep, to the one that has had a 3 page fit after misunderstanding what I meant. 

Stick around. You will see plenty of examples of what I mentioned.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 14, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep, to the one that has had a 3 page fit after misunderstanding what I meant.



You mean because I tried to pin down any facts to what you claimed, before I realized you are just a massive troll and are not to be taken seriously.

That is not "misunderstanding", and why you are no longer to be taken seriously.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> You mean because I tried to pin down any facts to what you claimed, before I realized you are just a massive troll and are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> That is not "misunderstanding", and why you are no longer to be taken seriously.


Whatever you need to tell yourself after your embarrassing fit. Note that I told you exactly what I meant, and the fit continued anyway. Still happening, really. 

Yes, you misunderstood. I clarified for you. But you didn't care to understand, you just had a tiny little hard on for me. So the hissy fit continues...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom  furthermore.. and I will try to be crystal clear, to avoid the board being treated to another 3 page hissy fit...

Nobody --and I promise you, it is nobody-- cares about your opinion of me, least of all me. 

If you need to bookmark this post and refer back to it often, please do so.


----------



## ReinyDays (Dec 14, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Yep, pretty much.
> 
> Hell, want a good laugh?  Look up what they always report about Lake Oroville.
> 
> ...



Haven't been to Oroville since the dam went in ... my mother liked to pan for gold along that stretch of river ... that was where the bear incident happened ... and us with a vapor-locked Chevy Corvair ...


----------



## inhouse (Dec 19, 2021)

excalibur 

  Yeah.  Such "junk science" that about 98% of scientists from different fields of science say that global warming is a reality.


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> You mean because I tried to pin down any facts to what you claimed, before I realized you are just a massive troll and are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> That is not "misunderstanding", and why you are no longer to be taken seriously.


I am wondering how long it took for you determine that?


----------



## ding (Dec 19, 2021)

inhouse said:


> excalibur
> 
> Yeah.  Such "junk science" that about 98% of scientists from different fields of science say that global warming is a reality.


Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.











Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 19, 2021)

ding said:


> This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming.



Which to me is a guaranteed fail from the start.  And this is the kind of "scientific failure" that drives people like me crazy.  If they want to be taken seriously, they need to stop "cheating" and let the data and facts speak for themselves.  The constant fudging and claims that never happen have made most of them lose all credibility with me.



> In 2009, Al Gore loosely cited researchers and said there was a “75% chance” the ice could be gone during at least some summer months within five to seven years because of man-made global warming.





> In 1970 Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”





> “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of _Mademoiselle_. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”





> “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”





> Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”





> Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China, and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”





> In January 1970, _Life_ reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”





> Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000 if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”





> Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in _Look_ that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”





> Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”



Oh, and several of those were from Kenneth Watt.  Who for the last two decades has been a huge global warming screamer.

This is the thing, I do not trust screamers.  Especially when the screams over and over again are proven to be completely false.  Like the IPCC saying in 1990 that sea levels rise would increase to over 7mm per year by 2030.  Which amazingly has not happened, it is still at the same plodding increase that has been seen for the last century (2-3mm).  So it had better hurry up, it only has 9 years to more than double.

And yes, I am old enough to remember the screamers going "Global Ice Age!", a few decades before they changed to "Global Warming!", now "Climate Change!"  And claiming everything from increased rain and drought to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and even earthquakes on it.

Yes, apparently earthquakes are caused by global warming also.

So yes, I largely dismiss them all now, as they are grasping at straws and almost none of their "predictions" from even 30 years ago panned out, and are almost the reverse of their predictions 50 years ago.  With that track record, they have no credibility in my eyes.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

Mushroom said:


> Which to me is a guaranteed fail from the start.  And this is the kind of "scientific failure" that drives people like me crazy.  If they want to be taken seriously, they need to stop "cheating" and let the data and facts speak for themselves.  The constant fudging and claims that never happen have made most of them lose all credibility with me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This won't make your new friends happy.


----------



## ding (Dec 21, 2021)

inhouse said:


> excalibur
> 
> Yeah.  Such "junk science" that about 98% of scientists from different fields of science say that global warming is a reality.


Science isn't a popularity contest. 

Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. *We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.

ShieldSquare Captcha​


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> I am no expert, but it is my opinion you are wrong about that.
> 
> {...
> An *ice age* is a long period of reduction in the temperature of Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth's climate alternates between ice ages and greenhouse periods, during which there are no glaciers on the planet. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation.[1] Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed _glacial periods_ (or, alternatively, _glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades_, or colloquially, _ice ages_), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called _interglacials_ or _interstadials_.[2]
> ...



From YOUR link you didn't read:

 "Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed _glacial periods_ (or, alternatively, _glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades_, or colloquially, _ice ages_), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called _interglacials_ or _interstadials_.[2]"

You are wrong since we are CURRENTLY in an Ice Age that are divided by long GLACIATION periods with short periods of Interglacial time which we are near the end of.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> From YOUR link you didn't read:
> 
> "Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed _glacial periods_ (or, alternatively, _glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades_, or colloquially, _ice ages_), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called _interglacials_ or _interstadials_.[2]"
> 
> You are wrong since we are CURRENTLY in an Ice Age that are divided by long GLACIATION periods with short periods of Interglacial time which we are near the end of.



Wrong.

What I linked and copied is the traditional climate swing that has been going on for over a million years.
At least 12 cold and warm cycles.
They have always been long cooling but with short warming.
That is because the cooling comes from the ubiquitous plants being continually successful and absorbing CO2, while the warming comes from their sudden frosty death and decay back to CO2.

That is what had been happening up until about 1800.  
We were at the end of the normal warming, and it was supposed to start cooling, as plant growth used up too much CO2, allowing too much heat to escape into space.

But since 1800, the industrial revolution has artificially replaced the CO2 used up by plants, and initiated a whole new, additional warming cycle on top of the existing normal hot part of the natural cycle.
The current warming is NOT from decaying plants giving up their CO2.
It is from artificially dug up carbon that had been sequestered under ground, over hundreds of millions of years.
We are totally screwing up the normal cycle, with something that has never happened, ever before.
The result of which likely will be much hotter temperatures than the world has ever seen.
Plants usually have a death cycle every 60 thousand years from it getting too cold.
But the NEXT massive plant die off will be from it being too HOT instead of too COLD, so it will add positive feed back.
Instead of swing the cycle back and forth, the next plant death cycle from current global warming will produce POSITIVE FEEDBACK, that will start a race condition, making the planet much hotter than it has ever been.
Making life on the planet impossible, most likely.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> What I linked and copied is the traditional climate swing that has been going on for over a million years.
> At least 12 cold and warm cycles.
> ...



Your link doesn't agree with you:

"Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed _glacial periods_ (or, alternatively, _glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades_, or colloquially, _ice ages_), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called _interglacials_ or _interstadials_.[2]"

The *current* Ice age we live in is nearly 3 million years long interspersed with long periods of Glaciation and short periods of Interglacial phases.

We are living in an Ice House phase of Earths Climate






LINK

Now I am wondering how many beers you drank this morning.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Science isn't a popularity contest.
> 
> Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, *we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. *We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.
> 
> ShieldSquare Captcha​



There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.
Anyone can easily see it, as the Arctic ice cap that never opened up for at least tens of thousands of years, suddenly has easy summer and winter shipping lanes.

The only people who are skeptical about the need to do something about the global warming, are those who think it will not go into extreme, positive feedback, race condition, because there are natural negative freed back moderators.
Specifically, they think warming will increase atmospheric moisture, which will result in clouds that reflect out more sunlight, increasing the Earth's albedo.

I think the risk is way too high to pin our species survival on, and who wants to live on a planet with perpetual cloud cover?  No more astronomy, no more stars in the night sky.  No more astral navigation.  Possibly perpetual fog, making air travel riskier.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your link doesn't agree with you:
> 
> "Individual pulses of cold climate within an ice age are termed _glacial periods_ (or, alternatively, _glacials, glaciations, glacial stages, stadials, stades_, or colloquially, _ice ages_), and intermittent warm periods within an ice age are called _interglacials_ or _interstadials_.[2]"
> 
> ...



Wrong.
What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.

So I have no idea what you are trying to say.
You are not adding any information.
Everyone knows all about the past 12 known iceage cycles.

Everyone also knows that with cold and warm parts together, the whole cycle is about 110,000 years long.
Everyone also knows that the current artificial additional warming is starting on top of a natural warming, and will then make it about twice as hot as it has been in hundreds of millions of years.

Explain yourself.
You keep saying we all have it wrong and only you have it right, but you have NOT at all said what you think we have wrong?


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.
> Anyone can easily see it, as the Arctic ice cap that never opened up for at least tens of thousands of years, suddenly has easy summer and winter shipping lanes.
> 
> The only people who are skeptical about the need to do something about the global warming, are those who think it will not go into extreme, positive feedback, race condition, because there are natural negative freed back moderators.
> ...


We're in an interglacial cyle.  That's what happens during interglacials.  And scientists have disagreed that man is causing the planet to warm.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.









Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> There really isn't anyone arguing against global warming reality.


There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.

For example:
Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
> We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.
> 
> ...


You are using those terms incorrectly.

We transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago.  Our planet is an icehouse planet now.  There have been over 30 glacial and interglacial cycles since the transition to an icehouse began.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> We're in an interglacial cyle.  That's what happens during interglacials.  And scientists have disagreed that man is causing the planet to warm.
> 
> Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.
> 
> ...



That is wrong because it does not disagree with the fact we are causing global warming artificially.
No one can deny that.
All they are trying to do is claim there is so much constant noise that this current and unique trend may be not that significant.
And the reason that we know that approach is wrong is because we KNOW there are lots of positive feedback mechanism that greatly risk a race condition that could wipe out all life on the whole planet.
They include things like water vapor and methane that is currently frozen in tundra and ocean bottoms.

The natural warming/cooling cycles is over 1000 times slower than the current trend.
The current trend is NOT natural, is warming on top of the highest natural warming, and likely will result in a climate that has not existed in over 100 million years.  It is true we may well survive, but we also may not.  The whole concept of rolling the dice to find out, is ridiculously stupid.  No one should want to risk going back to a climate of the Cambrian era, even if we could survive it.  Things like perpetual fog and oceans 240' higher, are not positive things.

Again, the point is we have lots of buried land mines that could go off.
There are a billion years of sequestered carbon in frozen tundra, ocean bottoms, etc., that have NEVER been unfrozen.
If we do succeed in unfreezing them, it is possible the whole planet will never go back.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> What I am saying is EXACTLY what your link is saying.
> We have had at least 12 icehouse to greenhouse cycles, the last natural one was the end of the greenhouse, and we are supposed to be now entering a icehouse phase.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 7, 2022)

So, checking in...

Have a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board outsmarted the global scientific community yet?

No?

Ok, will check back later.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> That is wrong because it does not disagree with the fact we are causing global warming artificially.
> No one can deny that.
> All they are trying to do is claim there is so much constant noise that this current and unique trend may be not that significant.
> And the reason that we know that approach is wrong is because we KNOW there are lots of positive feedback mechanism that greatly risk a race condition that could wipe out all life on the whole planet.
> ...


You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right?  The IPCC is blaming the urban heat island effect on CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, checking in...
> 
> Have a bunch of uneducated slobs on a message board outsmarted the global scientific community yet?
> 
> ...


Yes.  For no other reason than we think that science is harmed whenever anyone claims the science is settled.  That's like saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  It's not good for science.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> There have been many reviews and articles published that reached the conclusion that much of the global warming since the mid-20th century and earlier could be explained in terms of solar variability.
> 
> For example:
> Soon et al. (1996); Hoyt & Schatten (1997); Svensmark & Friis-Christensen (1997); Soon et al. (2000b,a); Bond et al. (2001); Willson & Mordvinov (2003); Maasch et al. (2005); Soon (2005); Scafetta & West (2006a,b); Scafetta & West (2008a,b); Svensmark (2007); Courtillot et al. (2007, 2008); Singer & Avery (2008); Shaviv (2008); Scafetta (2009, 2011); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2008, 2010); Kossobokov et al. (2010); Le Mouel et al. ¨ (2011); Humlum et al. (2011); Ziskin & Shaviv (2012); Solheim et al. (2012); Courtillot et al. (2013); Solheim (2013); Scafetta & Willson (2014); Harde (2014); Luning & Vahrenholt ¨ (2015, 2016); Soon et al. (2015); Svensmark et al. (2016, 2017); Harde (2017); Scafetta et al. (2019); Le Mouel¨ et al. (2019a, 2020a); Morner et al. ¨ (2020); Ludecke et al. ¨ (2020)).



Sorry, but nonsense.
We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
(For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)

This is not at all difficult.
We are adding over 50 trillion tons of carbon to the atmosphere every single year.
It accumulates because CO2 can not break down unless plants do it, and the plants can't keep up.
So the CO2 has already increased by over 40%.
And when there is more CO2 at the boundary to space, it prevents heat escape from radiating out, because CO2 converts radiant to vibratory heat, that can't leave the planet.
The science is totally incontrovertible.
All that can be argued with whether or not increasing cloud cover will neutralized the increase.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Sorry, but nonsense.
> We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
> (For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)
> 
> ...


Again... You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right? The IPCC is attributing the urban heat island effect to CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Sorry, but nonsense.
> We specifically have satellites in order to measure solar variability, and we are absolutely, 100% positive, that current global warming over the last 100 years is NOT due to solar variability, in any way.
> (For extrapolation from before satellites, we can use things like tree rings, ice cores, etc.)
> 
> ...


You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you have no underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate. All you can do is argue we should blindly accept what we are told.  That is decidedly unscientific and ultimately harmful to science.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> You are using those terms incorrectly.
> 
> We transitioned from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet ~3 million years ago.  Our planet is an icehouse planet now.  There have been over 30 glacial and interglacial cycles since the transition to an icehouse began.
> 
> View attachment 611988



Wrong.
The time scale you are using is entirely wrong.
The whole planet was much warming hundreds of millions of years ago, but that was because at one time the earth has a methane and ammonia atmosphere and not an oxygen and nitrogen one.
It was plants that switched it over.
And it took a long time for plants to use up enough CO2 in order to cool the planet off.

The icehouse/greenhouse cycles are about 110,000 years long, and we have had about 12 of them consecutively.
Your graph is all wrong, and over much too long of a period to even begin to consider.

Here is the real data, from Antarctic ice cores.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> You must have missed the part where it all depends on which datasets are used, right?  The IPCC is blaming the urban heat island effect on CO2 and they are using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets.



Wrong.
Ice cores and tree rings are NOT effected by urban heat islands, and solar variability has ZERO correlation to current heat accumulations that match CO2 increases.

We know all about solar variability.
We know about 13 year long solar cycles, etc.
That has all been taken into account.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you have no underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate. All you can do is argue we should blindly accept what we are told.  That is decidedly unscientific and ultimately harmful to science.



Wrong.
I know at least 100 times more than you about icehouse/greenhouse cycles.
Most people just do not call them that.
I just switched over to using them because they are useful.
Most people call the cooling simply an "ice age", and the warming "interglacial".
It makes no sense to call the whole time span of the 12 known cooling and warming cycles to be collectively the "ice age", because it includes both warming and cooling, and was not changing on average over time, UNTIL NOW!

I know exactly what drives the planet's climate.
Before plants, it was mostly orbit, like precession and nutation.
There also are solar cycles.
But we know all about these, these are NOT the current cause, and these generally are MUCH slower than the current change.
The current change is almost entirely due to the carbon/plant cycle.
And we know all about it because unlike planetary inputs, the carbon/plant cycle conditions are EASY to duplicate in laboratories we can experiment on.
We know for sure that CO2 forces heat retention.
It can not do otherwise.
By the way, I do have a degree in physics, not that a degree makes one infallible.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Yes.  For no other reason than we think that science is harmed whenever anyone claims the science is settled.  That's like saying pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  It's not good for science.



Since there have been over 12 recorded warming/cooling planetary cycles, it is VERY settled science.
We also know the current warming is way different, wrong, artificial, and unsettling.
The only thing that is not settled is whether there are enough negative feedback modifiers to prevent disaster or so many positive feedback modifiers that it will result in a deadly race condition.
The fact the normal cycles are 110,000 years long, shows there have to be both to some degree.

To claim this is normal and there is no risk is just insane.


----------



## Mushroom (Mar 7, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> we are CURRENTLY in an Ice Age



In general, most geologists tend to consider a glaciation when there are permanent polar ice caps.  But many tend to use the Arctic one as the benchmark, as the one over the Antarctic has been there for over 45 million years.  But we know that there was no Arctic Ice Sheet for long periods of time, as land that was just below the Arctic Circle has palm tree fossils.  As well as similar fossils up into most of Northern Canada.  Trees that naturally do not grow much above Central California today.

I tend to laugh at people screaming at the difference in a few years, when I tend to look at such things in periods covering tens of thousands of years (or millions).


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> In general, most geologists tend to consider a glaciation when there are permanent polar ice caps.  But many tend to use the Arctic one as the benchmark, as the one over the Antarctic has been there for over 45 million years.  But we know that there was no Arctic Ice Sheet for long periods of time, as land that was just below the Arctic Circle has palm tree fossils.  As well as similar fossils up into most of Northern Canada.  Trees that naturally do not grow much above Central California today.
> 
> I tend to laugh at people screaming at the difference in a few years, when I tend to look at such things in periods covering tens of thousands of years (or millions).



I think you have it backwards.
It is not that the poles were so warm as to have palm trees, but that continental drift was moved land masses around, from the equator to the poles and back.  Plate tectonics are not unusual once you realize the planet is just a thin cooled skin over a completely liquid core.

For the last couple million years, there has always been permanent polar ice caps.
The only time there was not permanent polar ice caps is way back when the whole planet was about 10 degrees hotter, and was a steaming jungle swamp, in perpetual fog.

{... The current period with ice caps at both poles is called the Quaternary Ice Age and it began 2.6 million years ago. Prior to that there was an ice cap in Antarctica, but not in the Arctic. This single pole Ice Age began 33 million years ago and is called the Cenozoic Ice Age. ...}


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The time scale you are using is entirely wrong.
> The whole planet was much warming hundreds of millions of years ago, but that was because at one time the earth has a methane and ammonia atmosphere and not an oxygen and nitrogen one.
> It was plants that switched it over.
> ...


You don't know what you are talking about.


The Quaternary Ice Age began 2.58 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene Epoch, although continental glaciation commenced in Antarctica as long as 34 million years ago. We currently live in a mild interglacial of the Quaternary Ice Age known as the Holocene Epoch, which started around 11,700 years ago.





__





						Greenhouse and icehouse Earth - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Ice cores and tree rings are NOT effected by urban heat islands, and solar variability has ZERO correlation to current heat accumulations that match CO2 increases.
> 
> We know all about solar variability.
> ...


What does that have to do with the the IPCC's MODELS including the urban heat island effect and saying it's due to CO2?

What does that have to do with the IPCC's models using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets?


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> I know at least 100 times more than you about icehouse/greenhouse cycles.
> Most people just do not call them that.
> I just switched over to using them because they are useful.
> ...


You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you don't have any underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate because if you did you would know the northern hemisphere is what drives the planet's climate.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Since there have been over 12 recorded warming/cooling planetary cycles, it is VERY settled science.
> We also know the current warming is way different, wrong, artificial, and unsettling.
> The only thing that is not settled is whether there are enough negative feedback modifiers to prevent disaster or so many positive feedback modifiers that it will result in a deadly race condition.
> The fact the normal cycles are 110,000 years long, shows there have to be both to some degree.
> ...


Incorrect.  The science is not settled.  You don't know anything about earth's climate.  You are regurgitating things you don't understand and are doing it very poorly at that.  You haven't gotten anything correct and you can't dispute that the IPCC is including the urban heat island effect in their models and using a low variability solar output dataset in their models.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The natural warming/cooling cycles is over 1000 times slower than the current trend.



I'll bet you can't prove that.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> The Quaternary Ice Age began 2.58 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene Epoch, although continental glaciation commenced in Antarctica as long as 34 million years ago. We currently live in a mild interglacial of the Quaternary Ice Age known as the Holocene Epoch, which started around 11,700 years ago.
> ...



Wrong.
The planet has changes its climate from the previous hot one and is always now going to be colder, and has had a series of at least 12 short, 110k year long warming/cooling cycles that are now called ice ages.
The permanent cooling of the entire planet is NOT called an "ice age".
There is no Quaternary Ice Age.  It is called the Quaternary Glaciation instead, because it is permanent.
That one has never changed since its start, and likely is never going to change.
The ones that do cyclically change are on a 110k year cycle, and are the only ones referred to as "ice age cycles".

{...
Quaternary Glaciation​The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation, is an alternating series of glacial and interglacial periods during the Quaternary period that began 2.58 Ma and is ongoing. Although geologists describe the entire time period up to the present as an "ice age", in popular culture the term "ice age" is usually associated with just the most recent glacial period during the Pleistocene or the Pleistocene epoch in general. Since planet Earth still has ice sheets, geologists consider the Quaternary glaciation to be ongoing, with the Earth now experiencing an interglacial period.
...}

This is a graph is the actual ice age cycles of cooling and warming.
You will notice a 110k year frequency length.
Something that does cycle, is NOT an "ice age".


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> What does that have to do with the the IPCC's MODELS including the urban heat island effect and saying it's due to CO2?
> 
> What does that have to do with the IPCC's models using low variability solar output datasets instead of the high variability solar output datasets?



No one uses IPCC models or urban weather station data at all to determine global warming.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Mostly satellite data and actual observation at the upper atmosphere is used.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> You didn't know the difference between an icehouse planet and a greenhouse planet, you were way off on the number of glacial and interglacial cycles that occurred and you don't have any underlying knowledge of what drives the planet's climate because if you did you would know the northern hemisphere is what drives the planet's climate.



Wrong.
I never used icehouse before because it is not one normally used.
But it is not a bad term.
However you know nothing about the cooling/warming cycles we call "ice ages".

If you look at the larger scale, you see there did not used to be ice ages.






Ice ages are the wide temperature swings that only started about 1.5 million years ago.
And we have only had about 12 ice age warming and cooling swings.






A permanent cooling of the planet is NOT called an "ice age".









						Ice age - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




And yes I do know the northern hemisphere is more significant for climate.
But do YOU know why?
It is because of the axis wobble precession and nutation, put the southern hemisphere slightly in the shade of the northern hemisphere.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  The science is not settled.  You don't know anything about earth's climate.  You are regurgitating things you don't understand and are doing it very poorly at that.  You haven't gotten anything correct and you can't dispute that the IPCC is including the urban heat island effect in their models and using a low variability solar output dataset in their models.



No one is using models.
Models are only for attempts are prognosticating, and the time for that was long over, since now the climate has warmed so undeniably that no one should even be remotely discussing this any more.
Its very simple.
Before 1997, no Northwest Passage for over 10,000 years.
After 1997, not only a Northwest Passage, but clear water in the winter even.
There is not a single glacier, in the northern or southern hemisphere, that has not had at least a 50% reduction from global climate warming.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'll bet you can't prove that.



Easily proven.
Classic historical data shows about a 6 degree change from a complete ice age cycle, over 110,000 years.
We currently have caused a 1.5 degree change in only about 20 years.
That is over a factor off 1000 increase in speed.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No one is using models.
> Models are only for attempts are prognosticating, and the time for that was long over, since now the climate has warmed so undeniably that no one should even be remotely discussing this any more.
> Its very simple.
> Before 1997, no Northwest Passage for over 10,000 years.
> ...


Of course modeling is used to determine the *cause *of the warming, dummy.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Of course modeling is used to determine the *cause *of the warming, dummy.



Wrong.
We know the cause.
We know how much solar energy strikes the planet.
We know how much is allowed to leave.
And it is the % leaving that causes global warming.
There is no way to model the upper atmosphere.
You do it with direct satellite measurements.
Modeling was NEVER used for global warming identification or causation.
What modeling was used for was to predict if positive or negative feedback would accelerate of decelerate in the future.
The idea being that we have to know if we can live with it or if it is a looming disaster.
Most scientists say it is a looming disaster, but that part is not universal.
The part of about global warming being real and man made, is absolutely universally accepted.
No one but total quack would even remotely try to deny global warming.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> We know the cause.


From modeling.  And they have cooked their models to force a consensus by suppressing dissenting opinions.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> From modeling.  And they have cooked their models to force a consensus by suppressing dissenting opinions.



Wrong.
The ONLY thing modeling was used for was to project how hot it would have to get before additional water vapor evaporating from the oceans would cause warming to accelerate even faster.

The ONLY thing we do not know is if the planet will become unbearably hot and kill off all life in 30 years or 300 years.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The ONLY thing modeling was used for was to project how hot it would have to get before additional water vapor evaporating from the oceans would cause warming to accelerate even faster.
> 
> The ONLY thing we do not know is if the planet will become unbearably hot and kill off all life in 30 years or 300 years.


Incorrect.  There was a recent warming trend.  It's the IPCC's modeling that is used to say why.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  There was a recent warming trend.  It's the IPCC's modeling that is used to say why.



Wrong.
NO one would or needs to do modeling for something that already happened.
Modeling is ONLY for attempts at long range projection.

For example, if some period of warming was due to increased solar activity, one would just consult the data on solar activity monitored by satellites.
It would be insane to model things we can just measure.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> NO one would or needs to do modeling for something that already happened.
> Modeling is ONLY for attempts at long range projection.
> 
> ...


Of course they do modeling to say what caused the recent temperature trend.  It's the only way.  That you don't know that is surprising.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Of course they do modeling to say what caused the recent temperature trend.  It's the only way.  That you don't know that is surprising.



If something is history because already happened, then it leaves evidence.
You NEVER use modeling for something that actually happened and can be investigated in past data.
Modeling is only used to predict future events because there is no other way to predict a future event.
You clearly do not know what modeling is.
No one would ever try to model a past event.
Modeling can't ever tell you WHY something happened.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> If something is history because already happened, then it leaves evidence.
> You NEVER use modeling for something that actually happened and can be investigated in past data.
> Modeling is only used to predict future events because there is no other way to predict a future event.
> You clearly do not know what modeling is.
> ...


Incorrect.  That you don't know the IPCC uses a model to "history match" as their basis that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming trend is astonishing.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 7, 2022)

ding said:


> Incorrect.  That you don't know the IPCC uses a model to "history match" as their basis that CO2 is responsible for the recent warming trend is astonishing.



Wrong.  When you want to predict the future, modeling is the only way anyone can do it.
But to test the model, you can use it on the past, in order to "history match" in order to see if the model has any validity or not.

Again, you would never use modeling for to try to reveal something about past events.
You don't need to.
With past events, you have real data.
If the warming were due to increased solar activity, you would see that in the data from monitoring solar incoming.
If the warming were due to precession or nutation, you would see that in the astronomical monitoring data.


----------



## ding (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.  When you want to predict the future, modeling is the only way anyone can do it.
> But to test the model, you can use it on the past, in order to "history match" in order to see if the model has any validity or not.
> 
> Again, you would never use modeling for to try to reveal something about past events.
> ...


It's amazing you don't know this.  It's called history matching.  You can't make projections without it.

Climate models are based on well-established physical principles and have been demonstrated to reproduce observed features of recent climate (see Chapters 8 and 9) and past climate changes (see Chapter 6).



			https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter8-1.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Easily proven.
> Classic historical data shows about a 6 degree change from a complete ice age cycle, over 110,000 years.
> We currently have caused a 1.5 degree change in only about 20 years.
> That is over a factor off 1000 increase in speed.



*Classic historical data shows about a 6 degree change from a complete ice age cycle, over 110,000 years.*

Complete cycle? That's not proof.

*We currently have caused a 1.5 degree change in only about 20 years.*

Which 20? 

*That is over a factor off 1000 increase in speed.*

You're funny.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 7, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The ONLY thing modeling was used for was to project how hot it would have to get before additional water vapor evaporating from the oceans would cause warming to accelerate even faster.



How much warming is caused by extra water vapor? Link?


----------

