Twenty years of two and a half degrees of warming

[Hans Blaster]

Go spend some time in quaternary geology.

Or better, Climatology, I have.

 

[lordjeff]

I take it you people must be globalists, anti-conservative, perhaps pro-communist, lets reduce the economy to zero. Are y'all related to Greta? You simply don't understand the systems as a whole but you must think Al Gore is part of the Holy Trinity. As I said-try reading some of the stuff the above scientists have published. Just to note, I have my own extensive library in my own home on all earth science fields & then some. I seek to educate people. Your lot seems to be to cling to a religion.

 

[lordjeff]

Or better, Climatology, I have.

Quaternary Geology or Paleogeology will give coverage of the Ice Ages. Climatology may not cover in detail. The subject of paleoclimatology is a much thicker read.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Quaternary Geology or Paleogeology will give coverage of the Ice Ages. Climatology may not cover in detail. The subject of paleoclimatology is a much thicker read.

I have a text on paleoclimatology in my office from one of my courses, but I can't go there due the pandemic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I take it you people must be globalists, anti-conservative, perhaps pro-communist, lets reduce the economy to zero. Are y'all related to Greta? You simply don't understand the systems as a whole but you must think Al Gore is part of the Holy Trinity. As I said-try reading some of the stuff the above scientists have published. Just to note, I have my own extensive library in my own home on all earth science fields & then some. I seek to educate people. Your lot seems to be to cling to a religion.

globalist: No frankly, I have no interest in surrendering an atom of my sovereignty to a global government populated by authoritarian governments that don't respect American Enlightenment ideas about freedom and self-determination.

anti-conservative: "conservative" is term so poorly defined (and used modify so many things) that I don't know if I'm anti-whatever it is.

pro-communist: Nope. I don't think the government should own the manufacturers, farms, and shops.

"lets reduce the economy to zero.": No economy means everyone must be engaged in subsistance agriculture and I don't have enough land for that.

"Are y'all related to Greta?" Not that I know of, but I've had this understanding of Climate change longer than she's been alive, so I fail to see the relevance.

"You simply don't understand the systems as a whole but you must think Al Gore is part of the Holy Trinity.": My opinion of Al Gore isn't particularly high, but it is also irrelevant.

"As I said-try reading some of the stuff the above scientists have published." Then tell us who they are, link to their writings, and explain why they matter.

"Your lot seems to be to cling to a religion." I'm not sure what lot you refer to. People who accept global warming science, atheists, christians? Personally, I gave up church for Lent 20 years ago, and I'm fine without religion of any kind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My point is on the media is I don't buy all the garbage the media has put out to advance the cause of global warming. Many people swallow the junk hook line & sinker because they figure oh if it's in the news it must be true. The media does not do journalism. And if one is opposing their theory & researching one sees the media garbage on any climate trend extends far back into the decades so the media can't predict warming. The bottom line is there is no consensus on this issue other than there are many feedback loops that link all the earth sciences & it takes a good education to see what has happened over time. You people live in a rather narrow world. God forbid you think Al Gore was St. Paul. Its bunk. Climate changes because it changes. What college education should do is give one the skills to critically reason. Go spend some time in quaternary geology.

"It is false because I don't like it" is not a very good argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

globalist: No frankly, I have no interest in surrendering an atom of my sovereignty to a global government populated by authoritarian governments that don't respect American Enlightenment ideas about freedom and self-determination.

anti-conservative: "conservative" is term so poorly defined (and used modify so many things) that I don't know if I'm anti-whatever it is.

pro-communist: Nope. I don't think the government should own the manufacturers, farms, and shops.

"lets reduce the economy to zero.": No economy means everyone must be engaged in subsistance agriculture and I don't have enough land for that.

"Are y'all related to Greta?" Not that I know of, but I've had this understanding of Climate change longer than she's been alive, so I fail to see the relevance.

"You simply don't understand the systems as a whole but you must think Al Gore is part of the Holy Trinity.": My opinion of Al Gore isn't particularly high, but it is also irrelevant.

"As I said-try reading some of the stuff the above scientists have published." Then tell us who they are, link to their writings, and explain why they matter.

"Your lot seems to be to cling to a religion." I'm not sure what lot you refer to. People who accept global warming science, atheists, christians? Personally, I gave up church for Lent 20 years ago, and I'm fine without religion of any kind.

I am no fan of Al Gore either. But that does not mean that there is no global warming. In fact as I have admitted before I used to deny global warming. My main reason was not a very good one. Al Gore.

 

[sjastro]

What happens to a runner when he goes out for a 7 mile run. All that ATP he makes does not go into work. Lots is simply lost as the form of heat-better known as entropy. What happens when the body warms too much-it sweats. Evaporation of sweat cools the body.

Apart from avoiding my question your diversion is another example where the entropy change involving the evaporation of sweat which cools the body involves an endothermic process which doesn't involve a change to the mechanical reservoir.

 

[Ophiolite]

My point is on the media is I don't buy all the garbage the media has put out to advance the cause of global warming. Many people swallow the junk hook line & sinker because they figure oh if it's in the news it must be true.

The media are irrelevant to the science of global warming. Your fixation on them suggest you haven't used the critical thinking skills your praise. When you start dissecting specific arguments and data in the IPCC reports then I will take you seriously. Until then you are just contributing to the warming by generating hot air.

Go spend some time in quaternary geology.

I tend to share the view of a hard rock researcher of my acquaintance who viewed the Cambrian and up as superficial drift deposits.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I take it you people must be globalists, anti-conservative, perhaps pro-communist, lets reduce the economy to zero. Are y'all related to Greta? You simply don't understand the systems as a whole but you must think Al Gore is part of the Holy Trinity.

We get it. You enjoy flapping your gums about people and ideas you don't like. But this doesn't have anything to do with the facts of the matter, a topic on which you seem reluctant to speak.

 

[lordjeff]

The globalists are the ones who are intolerant. E.g. I have no problem with bringing solar power to the market as long as the market decides. I'm far more educated than you in the matter of earth science. You guys are following the concept of correlation means causation. E.g. Al Gore comes along to promote the idea that the earth is rapidly warming up & it's all due to the internal combustion engine. The earth is not rapidly warming up. We have had 1.5 degree rise in temp. There are too many other properties in the universe & the solar system that contribute to climate. You would have us believe that Al Gore, Jim Hansen, John Cook, & Michael Mann are all gods on this issue. You really have to have significant subject background in all the earth sciences. The Sun is the prime driver of climate, not a simple gas that occupies 0.038% of the atmosphere. Why would you entrust anything in the media. As I mentioned in one of my posts, when I was growing up newspaper headlines abounded how we were headed toward an ice age. Thing is mankind does not live long enough to make hearty predictions about the climate.

 

[lordjeff]

The IPCC cannot be taken seriously. There has been enough investigation on the emails going back & forth on the whole idea of income redistribution. That was there goal. In fact back when I had my STS course & we examined the issue of carbon markets. This is what we really observed: the idea is that some world org would fine & punish some factory for producing x amount of what they considered to be excess co2. Such fines would then be distributed to poor countries in Africa. This UN organization then would get all giddy because they would think they are establishing social justice & they'd be on to their Nobel Prize. This is the problem. ABC company, a rich manufacturing company, sets up shop in some location in the U.S. They continue to emit various chemical compounds & they can actually keep up with paying the fines. Well the UN is all excited because some African village can now power a light bulb. However, the people who live near ABC are not too happy with the devaluation of their property. Some are even complaining about the spike in asthma, disorders of the nervous system, etc. But they lack the financial power to move elsewhere. Finally they secure someone who will represent them in court. After all they say the concept was really to stop polluters-right? Wrong. The goal was not to stop polluters because if you shut down factory ABC, then no more financial fines come in to give to this African village. Bottom line is the income redistribution theme comes to a halt if you really stop pollution at its source. Don't forget the greenies don't like anything to do with the periodic table-it's not green-it's yucky. Well there goes the Nobel prize. In order to redistribute income & pump up the village, funds are needed. The way the policy is set, the funds come from those who pump out emissions. With no emissions, no money flows. The goal of the greens is just another venue to make money. Solar can come to the grid, so can wind. But I don't want to hear any complaining about why solar does not generate heat at night in a Minnesota winter. I also don't want to hear any people in my state complain about the size of their electric bill if everyone has to now rely on electric heat. The bottom line is you guys have bought one view. I'm using my science background that says the properties of the Sun are what drives the climate coupled with the unique properties of the earth. CO2 just does not comprise enough of the atmosphere to drive a climate cycle.

 

[lordjeff]

The media are irrelevant to the science of global warming. Your fixation on them suggest you haven't used the critical thinking skills your praise. When you start dissecting specific arguments and data in the IPCC reports then I will take you seriously. Until then you are just contributing to the warming by generating hot air.

I tend to share the view of a hard rock researcher of my acquaintance who viewed the Cambrian and up as superficial drift deposits.

You're the one buying into the IPCC. That's as bad as buying into the WHO. If it's truth you seek, visit the philosophy dept. If it's facts you want, read enough of the science, watch some podcasts. The fact is CO2 follows warming, it does not lead it.

 

[Ophiolite]

You're the one buying into the IPCC. That's as bad as buying into the WHO. If it's truth you seek, visit the philosophy dept. If it's facts you want, read enough of the science, watch some podcasts. The fact is CO2 follows warming, it does not lead it.

No. I am "buying into" the evidence, analysis, hypothesis formation and testing, conducted by many hundreds of experts and assembled and presented by the IPCC after extensive and extended debate.

In contrast you appear to be "buying into" oil company propaganda and weak, poorly supported studies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The globalists are the ones who are intolerant. E.g. I have no problem with bringing solar power to the market as long as the market decides. I'm far more educated than you in the matter of earth science. You guys are following the concept of correlation means causation. E.g. Al Gore comes along to promote the idea that the earth is rapidly warming up & it's all due to the internal combustion engine. The earth is not rapidly warming up. We have had 1.5 degree rise in temp. There are too many other properties in the universe & the solar system that contribute to climate. You would have us believe that Al Gore, Jim Hansen, John Cook, & Michael Mann are all gods on this issue. You really have to have significant subject background in all the earth sciences. The Sun is the prime driver of climate, not a simple gas that occupies 0.038% of the atmosphere. Why would you entrust anything in the media. As I mentioned in one of my posts, when I was growing up newspaper headlines abounded how we were headed toward an ice age. Thing is mankind does not live long enough to make hearty predictions about the climate.

The data is what we follow. You are reasoning emotionally. The Sun has been shown not to be the driving factor behind global warming. People have already posted data for you so I will not bother unless you ask, but they have measured the irradiance of the Sun and if has gone down slightly.

How can the Sun getting weaker be the driving cause of warming?

The cure for Dunning Kruger is education. i am betting that you do not even understand the Greenhouse Effect. Would you like to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. I am "buying into" the evidence, analysis, hypothesis formation and testing, conducted by many hundreds of experts and assembled and presented by the IPCC after extensive and extended debate.

In contrast you appear to be "buying into" oil company propaganda and weak, poorly supported studies.

This argument makes me so mad, I need to smoke a Chesterfield to relax:

 

[lordjeff]

No I don't have anything to do with oil companies It is common knowledge that the IPCC cannot be trusted because circa 2012 that's when their predictions did not pan out so they changed it to climate change. And yes I do know what the greenhouse effect is. We have had sunspot cycles in the past few decades & that lends itself to a more luminous star. The sun's photos which take a long time to climb thru the transition & convective zones get caught in a magnetic flux. Sunspots are darker because they are areas of cooler plasma. The flux causes the rays do distribute out laterally than straight up, thus enhancing the luminosity & heat. And so sunpot cycles do have an effect. In general a star is brightest at its mid-life. When stars are young they are essentially in their infancy. Our sun is an unremarkable dwarf. As it uses up its hydrogen, it will eventually be caught in a battle of gravity vs expansion & expansion will win out, thus moving it off the Main Sequence into red giant stage. It will spend some time here & eventually fade into a white dwarf, puffing off layers as a planetary nebula. Again I reiterate no one gas can generate a climate. When I was growing up as a kid there were hot summers then as there are now. There were cold winters then as there are now. The IPCC neglects to speak to the 1930s/40s which was said to be pretty hot. It is only looking for a scapegoat The IPCC is not God & neither is Greta. I have good background in meteorology, astronomy, geology, oceanography, ecology, & a bit of physics. So rather than be swallowed by up politicians who have an agenda, I simply chose to listen to a set of scientists who are not willing to be led hook line & sinker.

 

[lordjeff]

The data is what we follow. You are reasoning emotionally. The Sun has been shown not to be the driving factor behind global warming. People have already posted data for you so I will not bother unless you ask, but they have measured the irradiance of the Sun and if has gone down slightly.

How can the Sun getting weaker be the driving cause of warming?

The cure for Dunning Kruger is education. i am betting that you do not even understand the Greenhouse Effect. Would you like to learn?

You're assuming the Sun is on a permanent, general trend of getting weaker. Humans don't live long enough to see what will be the trend if any. Sunspots are currently low-do you know what the Maunder Minimum is. Next you're assuming that global warming is a a permanent trend. The planet has been thru both icehouse & hothouse stages in its history. You are in denial of the fundamental concept that unites all earth science-the Sun drives the climate. We have specific climates for different regions of the globe because a) the planet has unbalanced distribution of landmasses & ocean basins which of course set up different pressure gradients b) the planet has a differentiated atmosphere c) the planet has a differentiated mass which moves pieces of crust around the globe. Such effect precipitates different wind currents, air pressure belts, & zones of microclimate. 50 million years from now the planet's maps will look different again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're assuming the Sun is on a permanent, general trend of getting weaker. Humans don't live long enough to see what will be the trend if any. Sunspots are currently low-do you know what the Maunder Minimum is. Next you're assuming that global warming is a a permanent trend. The planet has been thru both icehouse & hothouse stages in its history. You are in denial of the fundamental concept that unites all earth science-the Sun drives the climate. We have specific climates for different regions of the globe because a) the planet has unbalanced distribution of landmasses & ocean basins which of course set up different pressure gradients b) the planet has a differentiated atmosphere c) the planet has a differentiated mass which moves pieces of crust around the globe. Such effect precipitates different wind currents, air pressure belts, & zones of microclimate. 50 million years from now the planet's maps will look different again.

No. I am not making any assumptions. Try again.

You seriously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My point is on the media is I don't buy all the garbage the media has put out to advance the cause of global warming.

Quite right - you should always look behind the headlines to see what the consensus of published peer-reviewed research is telling you.

Judging by the published research, the media don't seem to be exaggerating the urgency of the problem.