Climate Change(d)?

[pood]

I don't think there has been any unusual increase in frequency or intensity of hurricanes.

As usual, you are wrong.

 

[Shadowy Man]

You do not engage on the actual science because you can’t.

There really isn't much in the way of science presented. I have explained this before. I tend to ridicule the outlandish claims that appear in the legacy media about the coming climate apocalypse. The science of "tipping points" is just junk science.

Sorry but this either a lie or just plain ignorance. There is a rich abundance of research in climate science. I admit that it isn’t always easily accessible to the layperson and unfortunately science communication isn’t what it should be.

I was being very specific about where there is a lack of science is presented i.e. in the legacy media and here.

Ok. I see now. I apologize for the misread.

Sure there is plenty of research material available much of it is corrupt and junk.

How much actual climate science research have you read (I.e., peer-reviewed journal articles by professional climate scientists)? I would hazard a guess of none.

I agree with you here. You claim, without any personal experience or scientific acumen, that climate change has happened naturally in the past. This means that you rely on climate scientists to give you this information. Yet, you will deny* the very same climate scientists when they tell you that the current changes are due to anthropogenic causes and will likely cause massive disruption to our standard of living.

Ah yes, the weasel word "likely". Greta, Al Gore etc. do not say "likely". They thunderously shouts it from the pulpit with utter conviction like the deranged religious cultist she is. We are living in a time of boiling oceans you see. I look forward to when I can surf without a wet suit.

These people are full of shit.

Note that Greta and Al Gore are not climate scientists, as I have stated many times before. I will concede that there are those who use hyperbolic language and can do harm to the overall message. This causes unknowledgeable laypeople like you to be confused about the true science. This is unfortunate.

We all know that Greta and Al are not scientists but they grab the limelight. Gavin Newsom is as dumb and ignorant as they come and yet he tells us with unwavering certainty that we are all in imminent danger from climate change. Do you believe Newsom? The "we follow the science" guy that closed schools for two years, shut down businesses for two years because of "science" that was shit?

I don’t go to Newsom for my information about climate science. I read articles by actual scientists.

It is unfortunate, as I have said, that some politicians have made hyperbolic statements about climate science (on both sides of the spectrum), but the fact that some have done so does not therefore mean that actual climate science is wrong.

Your argument seems to be that because some politicians have hyped up the effects of anthropogenic climate change then the actual science of anthropogenic climate change must therefore be fake and part of a global conspiracy to effect political results. And perhaps you haven’t said that latter part explicitly, but is it implicit in your denials* because there is a lot of climate science out there from many nations and sources that must be fabricated for your assertions to be true.

*oops, I did it again.

 

[steve_bank]

"Terribly unknown" Jimmy? Be careful, you may be seen as a heretic and cast out from the congregation.

Fizzle, more of your muddy thinking. We don't know what climate around the globe will be 200-300 years from now with any exactitude, but we have an idea of where it is heading, and that is supported by observation.

I gave you some basic science as to how small changes in ocean temperatures drive more intense storms, do you refute that?

You argue like a creationist on science.

I have to apologize for saying you swill beer. I am sure Santa Monica sophisticates drink their beer from chilled fine crystal glassware. Let the beer breathe taking in the aroma , then swishing it around in the mouth for a maximum sensory experiemce.

If you think you are leading us to a profound revaluation or are shocking us by your posts you are pleasuring yourself.

 

[TSwizzle]

How much actual climate science research have you read (I.e., peer-reviewed journal articles by professional climate scientists)? I would hazard a guess of none.

More than none.

I don’t go to Newsom for my information about climate science.

I don't either but Newsom is a huge mouthpiece for climate catastrophe/apocalypse and set California policies that are detrimental for the citizens of California. Billions of dollars wasted on high speed rail for example. Newsom has taken on the role of Emperor as he decrees no new ICE vehicles can be sold in California. And this is the party that is worried about losing our democracy

Your argument seems to be that because some politicians have hyped up the effects of anthropogenic climate change then the actual science of anthropogenic climate change must therefore be fake and part of a global conspiracy to effect political results.

Politicians use the climate catastrophe/apocalypse narrative to get their dumb policies into place. Net Zero is the dumbest of the dumb ideas right up there with empty headed AOC and her Green New Deal.

And perhaps you haven’t said that latter part explicitly, but is it implicit in your denials* because there is a lot of climate science out there from many nations and sources that must be fabricated for your assertions to be true.

*oops, I did it again.

You quickly resort to type don't you?

 

[steve_bank]

Mr TSwizzle,

How do you explain rising sea levels and temperatures, or do you think the measurements are false?

Ice Persists in the Northwest Passage

The decline of sea ice in the Arctic has made the passage increasingly viable for ships, but it’s still not always smooth sailing.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

For centuries, explorers have tested the icy waters of the Arctic, looking for sea routes through the cluster of islands north of mainland Canada. Such a route, known as the Northwest Passage, can dramatically shorten the journey between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The decline of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has made this passage increasingly viable. But as this image shows, it’s still not always smooth sailing.

The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite acquired this image on August 22, 2021. It shows part of the “southern route”—one of two main routes most feasible for the passage of large ships. Since about 2006, the Northwest Passage has become navigable for a short period late in most summers. So far this year, that hasn’t quite happened.

“The southern route still has ice,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “But it’s possible a channel could open up in the next couple of weeks before freeze-up starts in earnest.”

In this scene, the southern route appears mostly open except for ice that still floats in the straits around Victoria Island and King William Island. Meier notes that these are common places for ice to collect. Sea ice drifts south from the open Arctic Ocean through channels on both sides of Prince of Wales Island; it then hits King William Island, where it piles up.

“It was this ice that doomed the Franklin Expedition in the 1840s,” Meier said. “They tried to go north of King William, but the ice closed in and crushed their ships. Amundsen, the first to make it through the Northwest Passage in 1903-1906, went south of King William Island, through the narrow channel between the island and the mainland. The island protected them from the ice while they wintered over in Gjoa Haven.”

Today, an increasing number of ships transit the passage, including a large cruise ship that made the journey in 2016. But such voyages are subject to the variable conditions from year to year. In contrast, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Healy—a combined icebreaker and science lab—is equipped to break through sea ice should it encounter any during its transit through the passage this month.

 

[Shadowy Man]

How much actual climate science research have you read (I.e., peer-reviewed journal articles by professional climate scientists)? I would hazard a guess of none.

More than none.

I’ll just have to take your word for it since you haven’t cited any science in this discussion.

I don’t go to Newsom for my information about climate science.

I don't either but Newsom is a huge mouthpiece for climate catastrophe/apocalypse and set California policies that are detrimental for the citizens of California. Billions of dollars wasted on high speed rail for example. Newsom has taken on the role of Emperor as he decrees no new ICE vehicles can be sold in California. And this is the party that is worried about losing our democracy

Your argument seems to be that because some politicians have hyped up the effects of anthropogenic climate change then the actual science of anthropogenic climate change must therefore be fake and part of a global conspiracy to effect political results.

Politicians use the climate catastrophe/apocalypse narrative to get their dumb policies into place. Net Zero is the dumbest of the dumb ideas right up there with empty headed AOC and her Green New Deal.

Sounds like you have a political problem. Or a scientific one. Yet you take your frustration out on the science.

Perhaps the politics forum is better suited to you, than this “natural science” one. Hmm?

And perhaps you haven’t said that latter part explicitly, but is it implicit in your denials* because there is a lot of climate science out there from many nations and sources that must be fabricated for your assertions to be true.

*oops, I did it again.

You quickly resort to type don't you?

Just adding a little humor, Jan. Since there’s no scientific substance in your arguments, why not? It’s not like this is beneath you, considering the level of your contributions to the discussion.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, young pole are indeed wising up.

.https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/

This extensive Wiki is based on a FAQ originally compiled by forums user cheesejoff. It aims to answer any questions visitors might have about Flat Earth Theory or the Society. Because there are different schools of Flat Earth thought, the Wiki should not necessarily be taken as the "official" view of the Society. The specific beliefs of our members are widely varied, as should be expected from such a group of free-thinkers!

Back in the 60s 70s the counter was a catch all phrase for those rejecting among other things the growing consumptive and what was considered a decadent for the day middle class. A color TV in the 60s was considered a luxury.

I expect at the base of those attacking climate change supporters and opposing any regulatory pollution controls are the those who cling to gluttonous gross consumption as a right. Even when it is self destructive.

Young people today are immersed in it from the first time they watch TV and go online. It feeds increasing energy demands and consumption.

People want something done about climate change, but do not want to give up anything, or dob;t make tye connection between climate change and lifestyle. Or they do understand but refuse to acknowledged it. Perhaps that is TSwizzle.

 

[Elixir]

are they instead pro-reptile or what?

Are you implying that Swiz is one of the lizard people?

Oh wait … it’s not true, is it Swiz? Please say it’s not true!

 

[bilby]

We all know that Greta and Al are not scientists but they grab the limelight.

Except, they don't "grab the limelight".

They were both minor sensations, briefly, when they first took the stage.

Since then they have both faded into obscurity; The only time I hear about either of them is when they are brought up by climate deniers, seeking to discredit the entire scientific basis of anthropogenic climate change by falsely accusing it of being promoted only by hyperbolic non-scientists.

 

[steve_bank]

Ok now I get it.

TSwizzle is jealous of the attention Greta gets.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We all know that Greta and Al are not scientists but they grab the limelight.

Except, they don't "grab the limelight".

They were both minor sensations, briefly, when they first took the stage.

What are you talking about? Al Gore helped save the world from the Scammers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How much actual climate science research have you read (I.e., peer-reviewed journal articles by professional climate scientists)? I would hazard a guess of none.

More than none.

I don’t go to Newsom for my information about climate science.

I don't either but Newsom is a huge mouthpiece for climate catastrophe/apocalypse and set California policies that are detrimental for the citizens of California. Billions of dollars wasted on high speed rail for example. Newsom has taken on the role of Emperor as he decrees no new ICE vehicles can be sold in California. And this is the party that is worried about losing our democracy

Your argument seems to be that because some politicians have hyped up the effects of anthropogenic climate change then the actual science of anthropogenic climate change must therefore be fake and part of a global conspiracy to effect political results.

Politicians use the climate catastrophe/apocalypse narrative to get their dumb policies into place. Net Zero is the dumbest of the dumb ideas right up there with empty headed AOC and her Green New Deal.

Technically we need to aim for Net Negative, as we have around 20 to 40 more years of bonus CO2 into the atmosphere. If we can get that CO2 to gasoline/plastics thing working on an industrial scale, that would likely get us there. Can't say if that is as big an if as cold fusion though.

Nuclear is getting into the picture too slowly. EVs are being inaccurately labeled as something it isn't (green), like Chipotle was 15 years ago (healthy). Feels like DC is pushing EVs for the tech being local more than CO2. So we've got a good deal of time before we stop emitting more CO2 into the atmosphere, to join all the other CO2 we have added since the late 19th century. Meaning more energy in the atmosphere, more storms, more lack of equilibrium.

And perhaps you haven’t said that latter part explicitly, but is it implicit in your denials* because there is a lot of climate science out there from many nations and sources that must be fabricated for your assertions to be true.

*oops, I did it again.

You quickly resort to type don't you?

*sproing*

 

[TSwizzle]

Sounds like you have a political problem. Or a scientific one. Yet you take your frustration out on the science.

I have a problem with the disconnect between the science and the religious zealots who use the mythical climate apocalypse for stupid policies.

Settled science my ass.

 

[pood]

Sounds like you have a political problem. Or a scientific one. Yet you take your frustration out on the science.

I have a problem with the disconnect between the science and the religious zealots who use the mythical climate apocalypse for stupid policies.

Settled science my ass.

I imagine Swizzle has me on ignore, which is OK by me. Someone might ask him exactly what he means by “settled science my ass“ — he, who obviously knows absolute ZERO about science, settled or otherwise, especially climate science. Someone might point him to the link in my earlier post showing that in the 1970s Exxon’s own in-house scientists predicted today’s human-induced climate change with “scary” accuracy, studies that Exxon covered up.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Climate Change Deniers' Cult will bob and weave; and sometimes espouse the commonness of rapid change in the past. They fail to grasp that this works against their position. Yes, dramatic climate transitions have occurred in the past but very rarely on the time scale of human civilization. 53 million years ago, for example, temperature fell sharply due to a sudden increase in duckweed population.

If duckweed could induce a sharp temperature change, imagine what Homo technologis can do.

I tried to explain this earlier and will excerpt from that post.

. . . It is not known with certainty what caused the Earth to cool about 3 million years ago, leading to glaciation and a climate where hominids thrived. One possible cause is the closing of the Central American Seaway as plate tectonics pushed the South and North America landmasses together. Separating the cold water in the Eastern Pacific from the warm Caribbean increased ocean heat in the North Atlantic which (paradoxically?) increased ice production in Greenland.

Anyway, as we examine past fluctuation it is interesting to see how often the level of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, correlates strongly with temperature. With CO2 both cause and effect of warming, positive feedback means that small changes can have a big effect on global temperatures.

This is a key point that deniers of anthropogenic climate change overlook. They take exactly the WRONG conclusion from the FACT that there have been frequent temperature fluctuations in the past. The sharp fluctuations of the past demonstrate that, due to positive feedbacks, the Earth's climate is FRAGILE. Two trillion tons of CO2 may seem like a tiny amount, but scientists understand that it has had a huge effect, and will continue to heat the Earth in coming decades.

Two specific changes may illustrate climate fragility. About 56 million years ago, methane hydrates in ocean sediments became warm enough to be released. This happened quite suddenly, and -- because methane is a greenhouse gas -- there was an EXTREMELY rapid rise in Earth's temperature, even bigger than the anthropogenic warming we currently enjoy. This sudden temperature rise caused massive extinctions.

Just a few million years later there was sharp temperature change in the opposite direction. With the extinctions, higher temperatures, and high concentration of CO2, multitudes of oceanic duckweeds (mosquito-ferns) thrived., sequestering carbon as dead duckweeds dropped to the ocean floor. This carbon sequestration caused temperatures to fall sharply.

These examples show that tiny causes, e.g. a rise in duckweed population, can have big effect. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they've been in a million years; and are still growing. Temperature records are being over-turned (though not in Santa Monica!). Large glaciers are on the verge of collapse. Habitats on land and ocean undergo profound changes.

By now the nay-sayers, embarrassed by their own wilful ignorance, are unwelcome at Faux News and turn to Newsmax and Infowars!

 

[Swammerdami]

Sure, Jan....

Sure, Jan,

Who's Jan? Is she just another meme name, like Karen, Chad and George? Is there a list of these meme names?

 

[Elixir]

Who's Jan?

I think she's a certain poster's mom. He hides under her skirts a lot.

 

[steve_bank]

Sounds like you have a political problem. Or a scientific one. Yet you take your frustration out on the science.

I have a problem with the disconnect between the science and the religious zealots who use the mythical climate apocalypse for stupid policies.

Settled science my ass.

Actually as a general historical principle no science is unconditionally settled. All theories are open to revision or replacement.

I do not dispute the general principles of evolution. If you asked me about theory of elocution in a formal context I'd the theory of evolution is not absolute truth, it is the best explanation based on current science, observation, and the archeological record. I offer no alternatives but philosophically it is not truth in an absolute sense. Evolution from abiogenesis to humans can not be experimentally demonstrated.

Same with cosmology and the BB theory.

The term 'x factor' came out of the Edwards AFB flight test program circa Chuck Yeager. It stood for the unknown. No matter how much analysis is done there is always the possibility of an unaccounted for variable.

It comes down to on what do you base a decision or policy. We are witnessing rising ocean levels large scale ocean and mountain ice melts, and rising ocean temperatures. That is indisputable.

Everything in the ecosystn is connectd. Ar the poles cold water sinks creating what becomes the current passing by Europe. That current mderates European weather and churns nutrients for sea life, like the fish you eat. If the current stalls the water loses O2 and nutruents in the water and sea life declines.

If apocalyptic means a tipping point and rapid drop in food and human population then climate change has a very real possibility of being apocalyptic.

So, all other causes have been eliminated, industrializton and pollution remain as the most likely cause.

In principle it is not that complicated. Heat is generated in the Earth by radioactive decay and heat from gaviraional forces as in the hot molten core. The planet is in a vacuum. The only way to get rid of heat is by thermal radiation to space. As a rough analogy geeenhouse gases act like a thermal blanket around the planet. Temperature goes up. Analagous to adding insulation to your house.

Greenhouse gases as in a greenhouse if you ave not made the connection. Sunlight passes through glass and heats up a greenhouse. Heat is trapped in the greenhouse.

The Sherlock Holms method, when you eliminate all that it can't be whatver is left however
improbable is the solution.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Sounds like you have a political problem. Or a scientific one. Yet you take your frustration out on the science.

I have a problem with the disconnect between the science and the religious zealots who use the mythical climate apocalypse for stupid policies.

Settled science my ass.

So, your logic is that because non-scientist politicians misuse the results of science the science itself is therefore suspect? That's peculiar.

Can you point to a specific science result that you have an issue with, while citing an appropriate scientific article that states that result? You said earlier that you do have "more than none" exposure to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the subject of climate change, so could you cite an article that you feel best supports your position?

 

[TSwizzle]

Sounds like you have a political problem. Or a scientific one. Yet you take your frustration out on the science.

I have a problem with the disconnect between the science and the religious zealots who use the mythical climate apocalypse for stupid policies.

Settled science my ass.

So, your logic is that because non-scientist politicians misuse the results of science the science itself is therefore suspect? That's peculiar.

What is peculiar is politicians and activists screaming we are all going to die because the planet is on fire when clearly that is not true.

Can you point to a specific science result that you have an issue with, while citing an appropriate scientific article that states that result? You said earlier that you do have "more than none" exposure to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles on the subject of climate change, so could you cite an article that you feel best supports your position?

I have posted numerous times on this thread responding to bullshit climate apocalypse "science". Your most recent attempt was only a couple of days ago.