New report on climate change released today

[Loren Pechtel]

west hollywood

Camp fire.

What are you talking about ?

The alarmists continue to look foolish with projections of catastrophe that fail to materialize.

He listed two catastrophic fires that were made worse by climate change.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Want you cake and eat it too hey? Toss a coin, heads man made GW/CC, tails man made GW/CC. I'm still waiting for conclusive scientific proof that any catastrophic predictions made about GW/CC tipping the planet to a point of no return in the last 40 years have actually eventuated. All Iv'e seen is skimming around the edges of a belief, not observable scientific fact. I dare anyone here to show me conclusive proof that anything predicted by the fraudster Al Gore in his Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth which a British court found nine gross untruths, have come to pass.

So the only evidence you will accept for global warming can only occur after catastrophe.

<Shoves Angelo off a skyscraper>

What are you whining about? So, it's a bit windy but you're fine. Complain if there's an actual problem.

I repeat again that a billion years of climate history is not the only matter that the taxpayer funded IPCC ignores. It ignores completely, or downplays the natural ongoing climate impacts of a great many other natural factors such as the role of the Sun-the key provider of energy into the climate system. The IPCC cherry picks from a minority of studies that suggests its impact is minor and ignores the majority that suggests otherwise.

The IPCC does consider those natural effects--they're why we see a sawtooth pattern rather than a line that simply keeps rising.

It was Hitler's propaganda minister Goebbels who once said : " Tell a lie often enough and eventually people will believe it!" Or something similar.

And the GOP listened and you fell for it.

- - - Updated - - -

lpetrich, I know you are a math wiz.

Can you show how in these previous eras (Carboniferous, Permian) that the much higher carbon dioxide levels combined with lower solar output (~2% less than now) would still lead to similar temperatures to our current time?

This is what Angelo will pull out next at seeing the above chart. That chart is almost a kill shot and the data behind its construction is solid.

View attachment 19485


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity

Don't bother--this is circular reasoning. The long-ago CO2 levels are calculated, not measured.

 

[repoman]

Don't bother--this is circular reasoning. The long-ago CO2 levels are calculated, not measured.

I would say that they may have been semi directly calculated using raw geological samples, not from using physics calculations.

What is possible is with stable isotopes is very impressive. Ratios of O16/O18 is a good temperature proxy at least.


But for 400,000 years in the past, there are fairly accurate measurements, right?

So, if accurate direct measurements (via proxies like stable isotope analysis) of temperature and carbon dioxide are possible to that time then that should be considered or debunked.

The Permian being 250 million years ago is a totally different matter...


But if Permian temperature is known well by direct proxy measurement, but carbon dioxide level is only extrapolated by climate model (taking well modeled solar luminosity) it is neither a point to use as support or detraction of it as a greenhouse gas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't bother--this is circular reasoning. The long-ago CO2 levels are calculated, not measured.

I would say that they may have been semi directly calculated using raw geological samples, not from using physics calculations.

What is possible is with stable isotopes is very impressive. Ratios of O16/O18 is a good temperature proxy at least.


But for 400,000 years in the past, there are fairly accurate measurements, right?

So, if accurate direct measurements (via proxies like stable isotope analysis) of temperature and carbon dioxide are possible to that time then that should be considered or debunked.

The Permian being 250 million years ago is a totally different matter...


But if Permian temperature is known well by direct proxy measurement, but carbon dioxide level is only extrapolated by climate model (taking well modeled solar luminosity) it is neither a point to use as support or detraction of it as a greenhouse gas.

It's the time the megayears that had high CO2 but current temps.

 

[angelo]

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...st-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

Using the American Enterprise Institute as a source on climate change is like using research funded by Phillip Morris to argue smoking is good for you. This is how fucking stupid and dishonest that organization is:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Es4gG9xVf8[/youtube]

Face it angelo, you don't believe in climate change because the facts don't match your narrative. That's it.

This idiot looks and sounds just like a fundamentalist xtian, or a follower of the terrorist Mo spewing forth their nonsense! Why is this idiot attacking one obvious nobody instead of someone like Freeman Dyson or a Judith Curren who are real scientists!

 

[angelo]

Want you cake and eat it too hey? Toss a coin, heads man made GW/CC,

Again, there was no simultaneous increase in temperature during medieval warm period.
For any given region there are long term fluctuations in climate distributions associated with one or another cause/causes.
If you go 5000 years ago Middle East was a very nice place, 8000 thousand ago Sahara was a nice place. That does not in any way affect Global Warming conclusion.
If anything medieval warm period should give all the more reasons to be afraid of Global Warming because it tells you that climate is pretty chaotic and can change for no obvious reason, imagine what would happen if you give a real reason for change, like significant CO2 increase?

But you just proved my point that climate change has been part of the evolving Earth for billions of years, not just a century or two! When conditions change, life either adapts or it perishes.

 

[barbos]

Want you cake and eat it too hey? Toss a coin, heads man made GW/CC,

Again, there was no simultaneous increase in temperature during medieval warm period.
For any given region there are long term fluctuations in climate distributions associated with one or another cause/causes.
If you go 5000 years ago Middle East was a very nice place, 8000 thousand ago Sahara was a nice place. That does not in any way affect Global Warming conclusion.
If anything medieval warm period should give all the more reasons to be afraid of Global Warming because it tells you that climate is pretty chaotic and can change for no obvious reason, imagine what would happen if you give a real reason for change, like significant CO2 increase?

But you just proved my point that climate change has been part of the evolving Earth for billions of years, not just a century or two! When conditions change, life either adapts or it perishes.

No, first: there was no global medieval warming, second: there is global warming now and it did not take billion years to develop, it took a hundred.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Want you cake and eat it too hey? Toss a coin, heads man made GW/CC,

Again, there was no simultaneous increase in temperature during medieval warm period.
For any given region there are long term fluctuations in climate distributions associated with one or another cause/causes.
If you go 5000 years ago Middle East was a very nice place, 8000 thousand ago Sahara was a nice place. That does not in any way affect Global Warming conclusion.
If anything medieval warm period should give all the more reasons to be afraid of Global Warming because it tells you that climate is pretty chaotic and can change for no obvious reason, imagine what would happen if you give a real reason for change, like significant CO2 increase?

But you just proved my point that climate change has been part of the evolving Earth for billions of years, not just a century or two! When conditions change, life either adapts or it perishes.

There have been plenty of natural climate changes. That doesn't mean we aren't changing it now with probably catastrophic results. Some of the natural changes have been catastrophic, also.

 

[fromderinside]

We need to divorce climate change the phenomenon from climate change the political pejorative. Climate change the phenomenon is a process governed in relation to entropy. Climate change the political pejorative is a position asserting humans are causing deleterious to life changes to the climate in the interests of human comfort.

The climate report concentrated on impact on living things as the result of man's activities.

 

[angelo]

But you just proved my point that climate change has been part of the evolving Earth for billions of years, not just a century or two! When conditions change, life either adapts or it perishes.

No, first: there was no global medieval warming, second: there is global warming now and it did not take billion years to develop, it took a hundred.

Typical warmist bullshit to justify their great climate change/global warming hoax and fleece the public out of trillions of dollars on useless and expensive unnecessary measures that punish the poor who cannot afford the quadrupling of power prices and access to cheap and plentiful sources fossil fuels.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But you just proved my point that climate change has been part of the evolving Earth for billions of years, not just a century or two! When conditions change, life either adapts or it perishes.

No, first: there was no global medieval warming, second: there is global warming now and it did not take billion years to develop, it took a hundred.

Typical warmist bullshit to justify their great climate change/global warming hoax and fleece the public out of trillions of dollars on useless and expensive unnecessary measures that punish the poor who cannot afford the quadrupling of power prices and access to cheap and plentiful sources fossil fuels.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

Looking elsewhere on that page that's pretty obviously a denier site.

 

[angelo]

Ever wonder why activist-alarmists, warmists will never engage a skeptic in a debate ? Perhaps it's because a skeptic may point out that the average global temperature has increased by about a hardly noticeable 1.5 F in 150 years.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Ever wonder why activist-alarmists, warmists will never engage a skeptic in a debate ?

No, I never wondered that. There was a debate here. Maybe you didn't read it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ever wonder why...

Only Big Oil has any incentive whatsoever to spend billions of dollars on denying global warming facts? No, everyone but the clinically stupid know why they are doing that.

 

[bleubird]

Ever wonder why activist-alarmists, warmists will never engage a skeptic in a debate ? Perhaps it's because a skeptic may point out that the average global temperature has increased by about a hardly noticeable 1.5 F in 150 years.

150 years, not thousands of years, you seem to miss the significants of the time scale.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ever wonder why activist-alarmists, warmists will never engage a skeptic in a debate ? Perhaps it's because a skeptic may point out that the average global temperature has increased by about a hardly noticeable 1.5 F in 150 years.

I suggest reading: https://smile.amazon.com/Six-Degree...9F0E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546485984&sr=8-1

This book does not attempt to address the issue of whether the world is warming and what forces are involved. Rather, it's looking only at what will happen if it does warm.

The 1.5F we have seen is only important at the edges, in most of the world it doesn't really matter. That's not to say that additional warming will be equally benign, though. Note, also, that there's a considerable inertia, even if we stopped all emissions of greenhouse gases the world would continue to warm for a while until it comes to equilibrium.

Note, also, that even the worst-case IPCC estimates ignore methane hydrate. It has the potential to be catastrophic but we simply don't know enough to make estimates and thus it's completely omitted even though it's the biggest factor on the table.

- - - Updated - - -

Ever wonder why activist-alarmists, warmists will never engage a skeptic in a debate ? Perhaps it's because a skeptic may point out that the average global temperature has increased by about a hardly noticeable 1.5 F in 150 years.

150 years, not thousands of years, you seem to miss the significants of the time scale.

And that most of that warming has been in the latter part of those 150 years.

 

[angelo]

Ever wonder why...

Only Big Oil has any incentive whatsoever to spend billions of dollars on denying global warming facts? No, everyone but the clinically stupid know why they are doing that.

Governments throughout the world have up to now thrown trillions of dollars on renewables such as wind and solar, yet CO2 is still rising and will do so for the foreseeable future. Why? Because all renewable power generation needs reliable fossil fueled back up when the wind doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow. CO2 is a [plant food] trace gas that's essential for life to flourish on earth. A rise of a predicted 1.5 F by the IPCC by 2100 won't even be noticeable. This is a case of all pain for the present generation for absolutely no gain at all for future generations.

 

[angelo]

Ever wonder why activist-alarmists, warmists will never engage a skeptic in a debate ? Perhaps it's because a skeptic may point out that the average global temperature has increased by about a hardly noticeable 1.5 F in 150 years.

150 years, not thousands of years, you seem to miss the significants of the time scale.

Do you notice a say, 35 C peak daily temperature to a 35.5 C peak daily temperature? The answer would have to be no if you're honest with yourself. Were global temperatures to rise say, 0.5 F per year for the next few hundred centuries, it would not make one iota of difference to planet Earth and most of the present life forms. Over longer periods, animals who fail to adapt to warming [or cooling for that matter] conditions will become extinct, just like it has always done over the enormous time span of Earth's history.

 

[AirPoh]

Please provide a link or I call BS.

Someone doesn't know what he word "may" means.

 

[bleubird]

Ever wonder why activist-alarmists, warmists will never engage a skeptic in a debate ? Perhaps it's because a skeptic may point out that the average global temperature has increased by about a hardly noticeable 1.5 F in 150 years.

150 years, not thousands of years, you seem to miss the significants of the time scale.

Do you notice a say, 35 C peak daily temperature to a 35.5 C peak daily temperature? The answer would have to be no if you're honest with yourself. Were global temperatures to rise say, 0.5 F per year for the next few hundred centuries, it would not make one iota of difference to planet Earth and most of the present life forms. Over longer periods, animals who fail to adapt to warming [or cooling for that matter] conditions will become extinct, just like it has always done over the enormous time span of Earth's history.

Did you notice where I live?