Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[kflaux]

Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now.

MWP I take to be the Medieval Warm Period. Not sure what you mean by RWP.

The MWP at least is within the Holocene, hence part of our current period of climate stability.

Oceans do have lag periods and enertia but once the heat goes in there are few ways to get it out again. Besides, oceans have their own regulating feedbacks, especially at the equator where most of the energy comes in.

Bracket the oceans for the moment. Something like 90% of excess global warming heat goes into the oceans, but most of the remaining 10% goes into the atmosphere.

That is enough to cause changes to the tipping points, described above. The 10% or less is sufficient to greatly reduce the Arctic ice (), threaten the Amazon rainforest, and cause melting of methane in the permafrost. None of this is controversial.

So granted what you say about the oceans, and I agree with you about the feedbacks etc, but they do not absorb all of the excess heat.

I think you have been sold a scary scenario that has little resemblance to reality.

Well, maybe so. I would like to think so. Honestly.

I am not a climate scientist. I have advanced degrees in physics, but they are not directly relevant.

But, the large majority of climate scientists are convinced that we are going to a Very Bad Place, so to speak.

These are scientists, for chrissakes, and at recent conferences etc, they trade notes about shrinks, and how to sleep at night, etc. This is not normal behavior.

Call it all some kind of mass derangement phenomenon, if you wish. But it makes a lot more sense to suppose that it's what they know that makes it hard for them to sleep at night.

 

[jc456]

Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now.

MWP I take to be the Medieval Warm Period. Not sure what you mean by RWP.

The MWP at least is within the Holocene, hence part of our current period of climate stability.

Oceans do have lag periods and enertia but once the heat goes in there are few ways to get it out again. Besides, oceans have their own regulating feedbacks, especially at the equator where most of the energy comes in.

Bracket the oceans for the moment. Something like 90% of excess global warming heat goes into the oceans, but most of the remaining 10% goes into the atmosphere.

That is enough to cause changes to the tipping points, described above. The 10% or less is sufficient to greatly reduce the Arctic ice (), threaten the Amazon rainforest, and cause melting of methane in the permafrost. None of this is controversial.

So granted what you say about the oceans, and I agree with you about the feedbacks etc, but they do not absorb all of the excess heat.

I think you have been sold a scary scenario that has little resemblance to reality.

Well, maybe so. I would like to think so. Honestly.

I am not a climate scientist. I have advanced degrees in physics, but they are not directly relevant.

But, the large majority of climate scientists are convinced that we are going to a Very Bad Place, so to speak.

These are scientists, for chrissakes, and at recent conferences etc, they trade notes about shrinks, and how to sleep at night, etc. This is not normal behavior.

Call it all some kind of mass derangement phenomenon, if you wish. But it makes a lot more sense to suppose that it's what they know that makes it hard for them to sleep at night.

Or they can't live with the lies

 

[westwall]

Ah, finally someone who actually posts something credible. Yes, the Earth operates on a scale far slower than the humans and other life forms which inhabit it. Things that occur now, won't become obvious for decades if not hundreds of years.

Usually, yes, you are quite correct.

However, that "usually" is the usually of the Holocene, which as you are aware, only goes back 11,000 years or so.

One of the more frightening things climate scientists have discovered in the past decade or two is that climate can change quite suddenly. Look up the "Younger Dryas" period, and how it ended.

Many climate scientists now think the Younger Dryas ended in a decade or less. Some think it ended in just two or three years. That's two or three years over which the climate changed by something like 10 deg F on average.

As Wally Broecker and others have stated often enough, it is very stupid to assume that because our climate has been benign for centuries, it will continue to be benign when we poke it with such a sharp stick so persistently.

No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models. Computer models are not data no mater how hard the AGW scientists would have you believe them to be. The proxies that they use are notoriously inaccurate. However, let us grant the hypothesis that the change occurred that fast. Nothing happened. Nothing at all. No mass deaths, no worldwide conflagration. Nothing. Well, the worldwide legend of the flood originates at that time. But nothing else bad happened.

All of the hyperbole, and all of the hysteria is merely a poor attempt at propaganda designed to frighten the savages so that they will willingly turn over their wealth and property to a wealthy elite. That's it.

 

[westwall]

Sorry, I don't agree with you. The scenarios you propose didn't happen in the MWP or RWP so I see no reason why they would happen now.

MWP I take to be the Medieval Warm Period. Not sure what you mean by RWP.

The MWP at least is within the Holocene, hence part of our current period of climate stability.

Oceans do have lag periods and enertia but once the heat goes in there are few ways to get it out again. Besides, oceans have their own regulating feedbacks, especially at the equator where most of the energy comes in.

Bracket the oceans for the moment. Something like 90% of excess global warming heat goes into the oceans, but most of the remaining 10% goes into the atmosphere.

That is enough to cause changes to the tipping points, described above. The 10% or less is sufficient to greatly reduce the Arctic ice (), threaten the Amazon rainforest, and cause melting of methane in the permafrost. None of this is controversial.

So granted what you say about the oceans, and I agree with you about the feedbacks etc, but they do not absorb all of the excess heat.

I think you have been sold a scary scenario that has little resemblance to reality.

Well, maybe so. I would like to think so. Honestly.

I am not a climate scientist. I have advanced degrees in physics, but they are not directly relevant.

But, the large majority of climate scientists are convinced that we are going to a Very Bad Place, so to speak.

These are scientists, for chrissakes, and at recent conferences etc, they trade notes about shrinks, and how to sleep at night, etc. This is not normal behavior.

Call it all some kind of mass derangement phenomenon, if you wish. But it makes a lot more sense to suppose that it's what they know that makes it hard for them to sleep at night.

The RWP is the Roman Warming Period which was at least 2 degrees warmer than the present day. Before that there was the Minoan Warming Period, and before that was the Holocene Thermal Maximum. All of these warming periods were warmer than the present day. And by a lot. Interspersed between the warming periods were cold trends. The Little Ice Age is the most recent, and before that was the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe. In other words, the climate is cyclic and regardless of CO2 levels the temps go up and down in a never ending cycle.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity

Doesn't mean it's not widely accepted as established theory

25 years after flipping from Global Cooling to Global Warming, your Cult wants to say the "Science" is settled.

It's the earth systems that have flipped in the past few centuries, from a very slow cooling trend to an upward temp spike.

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

But there's no Cult Fundamentalists insisting they have "Consensus" and the "Science is settled"

That's the difference between a death worshiping, Jihadist Cult and real science

 

[jc456]

100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity

Doesn't mean it's not widely accepted as established theory

25 years after flipping from Global Cooling to Global Warming, your Cult wants to say the "Science" is settled.

It's the earth systems that have flipped in the past few centuries, from a very slow cooling trend to an upward temp spike.

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

oh gawd.... snooze kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk... sorry I was snoring.

 

[kflaux]

No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models.

Ice core samples. Not models.

Well, I've shot my wad, as they say. At this late date, minds are typically changed only by cold, hard facts. Mom Nature is gearing up to take a 2x4 to your cranium. (to all of our craniums)

"Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." --George Orwell

 

[jc456]

No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models.

Ice core samples. Not models.

Well, I've shot my wad, as they say. At this late date, minds are typically changed only by cold, hard facts. Mom Nature is gearing up to take a 2x4 to your cranium. (to all of our craniums)

"Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." --George Orwell

and you have nothing to back any of that mumbo jumbo with. Nothing, you may as well be gargling and making noise for all your efforts s0n!

 

[bripat9643]

100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity

Doesn't mean it's not widely accepted as established theory

25 years after flipping from Global Cooling to Global Warming, your Cult wants to say the "Science" is settled.

It's the earth systems that have flipped in the past few centuries, from a very slow cooling trend to an upward temp spike.

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

But there's no Cult Fundamentalists insisting they have "Consensus" and the "Science is settled"

That's the difference between a death worshiping, Jihadist Cult and real science

That's because it can't be used as an excuse to fleece the public of trillions of dollars.

 

[westwall]

No, climate doesn't change "suddenly". Those "discoveries" were completely derived from computer models.

Ice core samples. Not models.

Well, I've shot my wad, as they say. At this late date, minds are typically changed only by cold, hard facts. Mom Nature is gearing up to take a 2x4 to your cranium. (to all of our craniums)

"Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." --George Orwell

Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt. The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life. No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.

 

[kflaux]

Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt. The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life. No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.

Why don't you ask a cattle rancher in OK or TX if the drought there has made life better for him.

Or ask a Pakistani who lost his home and family in the flooding.

Or ask someone who lost a loved one in Katrina, Sandy, Mitch etc.

Or ask a Frenchman who lost a parent in the horrific heat of 2003.

Or ask the almond farmers in CA's central valley how they're handling the drought.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths each year are already directly attributable to climate change. See e.g. Christian Parenti's Tropic of Chaos for details.

Moreover. CO2 and temperature are entrained variables. Each affects and amplifies the other. Which is another reason why, as I said earlier, climate is unstable as a rule.

 

[jc456]

Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt. The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life. No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.

Why don't you ask a cattle rancher in OK or TX if the drought there has made life better for him.

Or ask a Pakistani who lost his home and family in the flooding.

Or ask someone who lost a loved one in Katrina, Sandy, Mitch etc.

Or ask a Frenchman who lost a parent in the horrific heat of 2003.

Or ask the almond farmers in CA's central valley how they're handling the drought.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths each year are already directly attributable to climate change. See e.g. Christian Parenti's Tropic of Chaos for details.

Moreover. CO2 and temperature are entrained variables. Each affects and amplifies the other. Which is another reason why, as I said earlier, climate is unstable as a rule.

what does any of that have to do with anything? Holy crap a pasture of stawmen. my word s0n.

 

[westwall]

Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt. The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life. No disaster that the AGW sheep continuously bleat about has ever occurred even when the temps were much higher than they currently are, and for a longer period than they have been this time around.

Why don't you ask a cattle rancher in OK or TX if the drought there has made life better for him.

Or ask a Pakistani who lost his home and family in the flooding.

Or ask someone who lost a loved one in Katrina, Sandy, Mitch etc.

Or ask a Frenchman who lost a parent in the horrific heat of 2003.

Or ask the almond farmers in CA's central valley how they're handling the drought.

Hundreds of thousands of deaths each year are already directly attributable to climate change. See e.g. Christian Parenti's Tropic of Chaos for details.

Moreover. CO2 and temperature are entrained variables. Each affects and amplifies the other. Which is another reason why, as I said earlier, climate is unstable as a rule.

I hate to break it to you but drought is a natural way of life in the west where I live. In CA, where they are in the fourth year of drought the usual suspects are bleating about how it's all climate changes fault (man derived of course) all the while ignoring the fact that half the state is a desert in the first place (and wouldn't you know it, that's also where the majority of the population resides) and that in the rest of the state multi year droughts are common. Some droughts have lasted more than 200 years at a stretch.

Go back through history and tell us of a time when floods haven't killed people. I suggest you look up "The Great Drowning of Men" if you want to see something really bad. In other words, your argument is made up of emotional tales the likes of which have been occurring, without interruption, since before man was man.

There are no deaths attributable to "climate change". There are deaths associated to weather related disasters. I'll grant you that. But "climate change" is a meme. It has no basis in reality for the simple reason that the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING, regardless of mans input.

So, you love to trot out the misery of people and blame climate change for their tribulations. Please direct us to a single year....just one year, where no weather related disaster has occurred. Just one, out of those three thousand years of written history....give us one.

 

[mamooth]

No. I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean. If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.

What are you....high?

So, the new version of the Westwall idiot conspiracy theory has the energy vanishing _at_ the surface of the water instead of just below the surface of the ocean. And Westwall actually thinks that's an improvement. He's still shuffling energy off into a mystery dimension and proudly violating conservaion of energy, and hoping nobody notices.

Westwall, I suggest you write up a paper on your new version of physics, so you can collect your Nobel Prize. Make sure you include your explanation on exactly why conservation of energy doesn't hold in this singular case, being I imagine the Nobel committee will probably not accept your standard "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

 

[jc456]

No. I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean. If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.

What are you....high?

So, the new version of the Westwall idiot conspiracy theory has the energy vanishing _at_ the surface of the water instead of just below the surface of the ocean. And Westwall actually thinks that's an improvement. He's still shuffling energy off into a mystery dimension and proudly violating conservaion of energy, and hoping nobody notices.

Westwall, I suggest you write up a paper on your new version of physics, so you can collect your Nobel Prize. Make sure you include your explanation on exactly why conservation of energy doesn't hold in this singular case, being I imagine the Nobel committee will probably not accept your standard "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

i suggest you provide a paper that shows it does. I'm sorry the experiment is what I meant.

 

[westwall]

No. I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean. If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.

What are you....high?

So, the new version of the Westwall idiot conspiracy theory has the energy vanishing _at_ the surface of the water instead of just below the surface of the ocean. And Westwall actually thinks that's an improvement. He's still shuffling energy off into a mystery dimension and proudly violating conservaion of energy, and hoping nobody notices.

Westwall, I suggest you write up a paper on your new version of physics, so you can collect your Nobel Prize. Make sure you include your explanation on exactly why conservation of energy doesn't hold in this singular case, being I imagine the Nobel committee will probably not accept your standard "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Poor admiral. You lie cheat and steal and still you can't get anyone to agree with your tripe. The energy doesn't vanish. Where oh where did I state that? I merely state that the energy can't penetrate deep enough into the water for it to transfer to the water. I never said that it vanished. Poor, poor admiral, such a scientific illiterate trying to keep your poor head above water.

I suggest you just quietly go away....you are so far out of your depth, and such a ridiculous, pathetic liar, that you are no longer even fun to rip to shreds. Now it's too much like beating a child.

 

[jc456]

No. I said that long wave IR does NOT penetrate into the ocean. If it can't penetrate into the ocean, it CAN'T transfer its energy into the oceans.

What are you....high?

So, the new version of the Westwall idiot conspiracy theory has the energy vanishing _at_ the surface of the water instead of just below the surface of the ocean. And Westwall actually thinks that's an improvement. He's still shuffling energy off into a mystery dimension and proudly violating conservaion of energy, and hoping nobody notices.

Westwall, I suggest you write up a paper on your new version of physics, so you can collect your Nobel Prize. Make sure you include your explanation on exactly why conservation of energy doesn't hold in this singular case, being I imagine the Nobel committee will probably not accept your standard "BECAUSE I SAY SO!".

Poor admiral. You lie cheat and steal and still you can't get anyone to agree with your tripe. The energy doesn't vanish. Where oh where did I state that? I merely state that the energy can't penetrate deep enough into the water for it to transfer to the water. I never said that it vanished. Poor, poor admiral, such a scientific illiterate trying to keep your poor head above water.

I suggest you just quietly go away....you are so far out of your depth, and such a ridiculous, pathetic liar, that you are no longer even fun to rip to shreds. Now it's too much like beating a child.

depth, now that's funny!!!!

 

[mamooth]

Poor admiral. You lie cheat and steal and still you can't get anyone to agree with your tripe. The energy doesn't vanish. Where oh where did I state that?

I merely state that the energy can't penetrate deep enough into the water for it to transfer to the water. I never said that it vanished.

Then where does the energy go?

We know it doesn't reflect, as the reflectance of seawater in the far IR is near zero.

You say it doesn't go into the ocean.

So, according to your kook conspiracy theory, the energy doesn't go forward or back. And you say it doesn't vanish. So where is it? I keep asking, and instead of answering, you evade. After all, real scientists are known for that, pissing themselves and running when asked a simple question about their theory.

Poor, poor admiral, such a scientific illiterate trying to keep your poor head above water.

I suggest you just quietly go away....you are so far out of your depth, and such a ridiculous, pathetic liar, that you are no longer even fun to rip to shreds. Now it's too much like beating a child.

Just locate your balls and tell us where the energy went. That simple question isn't going away just because you keep throwing tantrums.

 

[mamooth]

Which were then modeled. The actual ice core data shows that warming occurs and then 400 to 800 years later CO2 levels rise. That is a fact that continually bites the AGW crowd in the butt.

It is amazingly stupid to say,

"In the past, forest fires were caused by lightning, and the present must be exactly like the past, so humans can't cause forest fires."

or

"In the past, species went extinct naturally, and the present must be exactly like the past, so humans can't make species go extinct."

or

"In the past, CO2 lagged temp, and the present must be exactly like the past, so CO2 must lag temps now."

The 3 statements are precisely the same concerning the degree of stupidity required to make them. A dim third grader could understand the logic failure behind them.

What's more, the recent science points out it's not even true that CO2 lags temps. Therefore, an honest person would not even be making the claim that CO2 lags temp.

Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming
---
Understanding the role of atmospheric CO2 during past climate changes requires clear knowledge of how it varies in time relative to temperature. Antarctic ice cores preserve highly resolved records of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the past 800,000 years. Here we propose a revised relative age scale for the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature for the last deglacial warming, using data from five Antarctic ice cores. We infer the phasing between CO2 concentration and Antarctic temperature at four times when their trends change abruptly. We find no significant asynchrony between them, indicating that Antarctic temperature did not begin to rise hundreds of years before the concentration of atmospheric CO2, as has been suggested by earlier studies.
---

The harsh reality that all of you can't stand is we have ample evidence, from actual real data, not computer modeled science fiction, that shows when the temps are higher life is better. ALL life.

North Africa used to be the breadbasket of Rome. How's it doing now under higher temps? You mean it's a blasted desert now? My, what an improvement.

Arabia used to be much more fertile. How's it doing now?

Dead civilizations litter the American southwest and Africa. Are they better off because of the warming?

Warming benefited northern Europe. Rational people understand northern Europe is a small slice of the globe.

I won't even get into your "ALL life!" statement. That took your stupidity to new heights, your deliberate absolute claim that every living thing on the planet would do better when temps are hotter. It essentially reveals you as a religious zealot, hoping for more holy warming.

 

[kflaux]

There are no deaths attributable to "climate change". There are deaths associated to weather related disasters. I'll grant you that. But "climate change" is a meme. It has no basis in reality for the simple reason that the climate IS ALWAYS CHANGING, regardless of mans input.

As I pointed out above, climate has been remarkably stable for the past 11,000 years, called the Holocene.

Holocene - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And it is precisely this climate stability that has allowed human civilization to thrive.

And we are just now in the process of pissing it all away.

So, you love to trot out the misery of people and blame climate change for their tribulations. Please direct us to a single year....just one year, where no weather related disaster has occurred. Just one, out of those three thousand years of written history....give us one.

Two problems here.

1) No, I don't love to point out misery. It pains me to do so.

2) The logical fallacy in the last two sentences of your paragraph is almost too obvious to point out. I get the feeling I'm not conversing with an adult here.

If someone somewhere has died of lung cancer without smoking cigarettes, does that imply the latter cannot cause the former?

Nothing personal, but unless you manage something a little more intelligent, I'll probably not bother any more.