Climate Change discussion (always fun)

[billvon 2,434]

>Climate can not be studied in the context of one life time.


Agreed. Fortunately it has not been. The current warming started in 1850.

[rushmc 18]

A good read.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/[url]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

Quote

rushmc

A good read.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/[url]

Edit: Not sure why this response is quoting the itself...

Rush, can you provide a description of that article in your own words?

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[SkyDekker 1,145]

Quote

Rush, can you provide a description of that article in your own words?

Not a hope in hell.

[turtlespeed 212]

SkyDekker

Quote

Rush, can you provide a description of that article in your own words?

Not a hope in hell.

Why the low self confidence? I have faith in you. You can probably do that.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

Speaking of not keeping up, you truly struggle with context man.
I'm almost embarrassed for you.
Almost.

[DJL 232]

SkyDekker

Quote

Rush, can you provide a description of that article in your own words?

Not a hope in hell.

This scene comes to mind in thinking of Rush's ability to summarize that article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKhPTvuXS6I

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

Speaking of not keeping up, you truly struggle with context man.
I'm almost embarrassed for you.
Almost.

What context?

A question was asked, and answered.

It's not my fault that someone besides the person that was asked, answered the question.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

The context that a question was not asked, nor answered.
An explanation was requested, you didn't do that either.
You grabbed your shovel yet again.

I'm done with your circle jerk way of "discussing" everything.
It's just so endlessly frustrating and futile.
Enjoy your shovel.

[rushmc 18]

In a nutshell?

It says the same as this study.

Quote

Study essentially says “we are guessing at future global weather patterns”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/08/study-essentially-says-we-are-guessing-at-future-global-weather-patterns/

More specifically?

I shows you don't know what you believe.





But the article conclusion states it the best

Quote

In conclusion, there can be no doubt that the mapping from a Bode feedback system to the climate is irreconcilably broken. Without the ability to claim amplification from large positive feedback, the IPCC looses the only theoretical basis it has for its overstated sensitivity and unless someone invents new physics that transforms 1 W/m^2 of forcing into 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions and that doesn’t violate Conservation Of Energy, claims of catastrophic effects from CO2 emissions will become as quaint as an Earth centric Universe.

CO2 is a minor player in climate change.
Yes, climate changes but, does man affect those changes?

At this point, I highly doubt it. And if you forced me to answer yes or no to the question does man affect global climate change I would answer NO!

I have stated this before. This is just another tree hugging group trying force a way of life down peoples throat! At least those who really believe it.
And they are being lead by those (Al Gore comes to mind) who wanted to get filthy stinking rich off your money in a cap n trade type scheme.
A nose ring comes to mind .......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jclalor 12]

rushmc

In a nutshell?

It says the same as this study.

Quote

Study essentially says “we are guessing at future global weather patterns”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/08/study-essentially-says-we-are-guessing-at-future-global-weather-patterns/

More specifically?

I shows you don't know what you believe.





But the article conclusion states it the best

***In conclusion, there can be no doubt that the mapping from a Bode feedback system to the climate is irreconcilably broken. Without the ability to claim amplification from large positive feedback, the IPCC looses the only theoretical basis it has for its overstated sensitivity and unless someone invents new physics that transforms 1 W/m^2 of forcing into 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions and that doesn’t violate Conservation Of Energy, claims of catastrophic effects from CO2 emissions will become as quaint as an Earth centric Universe.

CO2 is a minor player in climate change.
Yes, climate changes but, does man affect those changes?

At this point, I highly doubt it. And if you forced me to answer yes or no to the question does man affect global climate change I would answer NO!

I have stated this before. This is just another tree hugging group trying force a way of life down peoples throat! At least those who really believe it.
And they are being lead by those (Al Gore comes to mind) who wanted to get filthy stinking rich off your money in a cap n trade type scheme.
A nose ring comes to mind .......

I'm gonna take a wild guess that you bought into the whole
Y2K thing.

[billvon 2,434]

Quote

Without the ability to claim amplification from large positive feedback, the IPCC looses the only theoretical basis it has for its overstated sensitivity and unless someone invents new physics that transforms 1 W/m^2 of forcing into 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions and that doesn’t violate Conservation Of Energy, claims of catastrophic effects from CO2 emissions will become as quaint as an Earth centric Universe.

But if you could show such amplification, then WattsUpWithThat would have to admit it was wrong. Let's see:

================================
Significant contribution to climate warming from the permafrost carbon feedback
Andrew H. MacDougall, Christopher A. Avis & Andrew J. Weaver

Nature Geoscience
Accepted 10 August 2012

Permafrost soils contain an estimated 1,700 Pg of carbon, almost twice the present atmospheric carbon pool1. As permafrost soils thaw owing to climate warming, respiration of organic matter within these soils will transfer carbon to the atmosphere, potentially leading to a positive feedback2. Models in which the carbon cycle is uncoupled from the atmosphere, together with one-dimensional models, suggest that permafrost soils could release 7–138 Pg carbon by 2100 (refs 3, 4). Here, we use a coupled global climate model to quantify the magnitude of the warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon release and climate. According to our simulations, permafrost soils will release between 68 and 508 Pg carbon by 2100. We show that the additional surface warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon and climate is independent of the pathway of anthropogenic emissions followed in the twenty-first century. We estimate that this feedback could result in an additional warming of 0.13–1.69 °C by 2300. We further show that the upper bound for the strength of the feedback is reached under the less intensive emissions pathways. We suggest that permafrost carbon release could lead to significant warming, even under less intensive emissions trajectories.
======================================

[DJL 232]

You keep using that website as your reference and accuse people of capitalizing on the money behind the climate debate so I gotta introduce you to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

This is about the owner of that climate denial page, yes, he makes money by denying climate change, and his claims have repeatedly been debunked. He is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute which lobbies against....science.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rushmc 18]

Y2K?

Nope
But I was placed on a team that worked on it.
We only found one piece of equipment that could not handle it.
the rest was a non-event as we expected.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

DJL

You keep using that website as your reference and accuse people of capitalizing on the money behind the climate debate so I gotta introduce you to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

This is about the owner of that climate denial page, yes, he makes money by denying climate change, and his claims have repeatedly been debunked. He is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute which lobbies against....science.

Anthony Watts is NOT a climate change denier. Ouch, that will leave a mark.

He does not believe in the extreme predictions but he believes man does have an effect. If you don't believe me he states it right on his site.

The articles and discussions are professional and very technical at times.

In any event, you missed again.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Quote

Without the ability to claim amplification from large positive feedback, the IPCC looses the only theoretical basis it has for its overstated sensitivity and unless someone invents new physics that transforms 1 W/m^2 of forcing into 4.3 W/m^2 of surface emissions and that doesn’t violate Conservation Of Energy, claims of catastrophic effects from CO2 emissions will become as quaint as an Earth centric Universe.

But if you could show such amplification, then WattsUpWithThat would have to admit it was wrong. Let's see:

================================
Significant contribution to climate warming from the permafrost carbon feedback
Andrew H. MacDougall, Christopher A. Avis & Andrew J. Weaver

Nature Geoscience
Accepted 10 August 2012

Permafrost soils contain an estimated 1,700 Pg of carbon, almost twice the present atmospheric carbon pool1. As permafrost soils thaw owing to climate warming, respiration of organic matter within these soils will transfer carbon to the atmosphere, potentially leading to a positive feedback2. Models in which the carbon cycle is uncoupled from the atmosphere, together with one-dimensional models, suggest that permafrost soils could release 7–138 Pg carbon by 2100 (refs 3, 4). Here, we use a coupled global climate model to quantify the magnitude of the warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon release and climate. According to our simulations, permafrost soils will release between 68 and 508 Pg carbon by 2100. We show that the additional surface warming generated by the feedback between permafrost carbon and climate is independent of the pathway of anthropogenic emissions followed in the twenty-first century. We estimate that this feedback could result in an additional warming of 0.13–1.69 °C by 2300. We further show that the upper bound for the strength of the feedback is reached under the less intensive emissions pathways. We suggest that permafrost carbon release could lead to significant warming, even under less intensive emissions trajectories.
======================================

You need to re-read his article.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DJL 232]

Quote

Anthony Watts is NOT a climate change denier. Ouch, that will leave a mark.

Sorry, what? No really....please help me with this one. I'm trying to figure out how he's not a paid denier. As in just like these people who you SUSPECT are promoting climate change just because of cap and gain profits (who you therefore won't listen to), here's a guy who ACTUALLY gets paid to deny climate change and yet you'll listen to him.

https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=who+is+%22Anthony+Watts%22

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[SkyDekker 1,145]

DJL

Quote

Anthony Watts is NOT a climate change denier. Ouch, that will leave a mark.

Sorry, what? No really....please help me with this one. I'm trying to figure out how he's not a paid denier. As in just like these people who you SUSPECT are promoting climate change just because of cap and gain profits (who you therefore won't listen to), here's a guy who ACTUALLY gets paid to deny climate change and yet you'll listen to him.

https://www.google.com/?ion=1&espv=2#q=who+is+%22Anthony+Watts%22

Yes, but he himself says that isn't true, on a website. So there!

[gowlerk 1,926]

Quote

Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[4][5][20] He believes that global warming is occurring, but that it is not as bad as has been reported, and that carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change.[21][22][23] Watts has written that variations in solar irradiance, the sun's magnetic field and solar wind are driving changes to the climate,[22] contrary to the scientific consensus that the primary cause of climate change is an increase in greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide.[24][25] Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]

'nuff said on Watts.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Quote

Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[4][5][20] He believes that global warming is occurring, but that it is not as bad as has been reported, and that carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change.[21][22][23] Watts has written that variations in solar irradiance, the sun's magnetic field and solar wind are driving changes to the climate,[22] contrary to the scientific consensus that the primary cause of climate change is an increase in greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide.[24][25] Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]

'nuff said on Watts.

Exactly
And his site is a forum for those who wish to keep learning.

so I know you will not go there......

BTW
I love the consensus bs you posted

Funny shit

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DrSher 0]

"Climate change" started for real to be politicized back in the mid-70's. I vaguely remember my parents telling me there would be a new ice age in "100 years". At that time, nobody thought much about it.

In the mid-80's, the European left was struggling to get a new issue as the classic proletarian pandering was not working well much more. After all, the middle class was large, most people had homes and comforts and there was no significant conflicts. Then, the green agenda started. The left embraced this as a possibility to postulate the Uber-government, where taxations and control was to be handed over to big government.

In these days, there was a term called "eco-fascists", who created all kinds of disturbances and in a "righteous" vigilantism.

By the early 90's corporate interests noticed how this was something to make a penny off and after the Y2K scam, it was realized how far they could go to extract something off mass consensus.

A skydiver should always and philosophically reject consensus. That is what brought us together to begin with. You all may not think jumping out of an intact airplane is a big deal and I agree, but most others do. The consensus of what we do is both irrational and highly useless to societal economics and structure. Therefore, we should always be aware of these realities and reject temptations to fall in line.

Finally, are you willing to pay triple the prizes for jumping off airplanes? Or simply not being able to at all without special permit? If the globalist-backed consensus in United Nations had their ways, you all would have to. There would be ZERO sympathy from the "global community" if we all could not do what we are doing.

Z-E-R-O

There is still lots of time to learn it..

[DJL 232]

DrSher

"Climate change" started for real to be politicized back in the mid-70's. I vaguely remember my parents telling me there would be a new ice age in "100 years". At that time, nobody thought much about it.

In the mid-80's, the European left was struggling to get a new issue as the classic proletarian pandering was not working well much more. After all, the middle class was large, most people had homes and comforts and there was no significant conflicts. Then, the green agenda started. The left embraced this as a possibility to postulate the Uber-government, where taxations and control was to be handed over to big government.

In these days, there was a term called "eco-fascists", who created all kinds of disturbances and in a "righteous" vigilantism.

By the early 90's corporate interests noticed how this was something to make a penny off and after the Y2K scam, it was realized how far they could go to extract something off mass consensus.

A skydiver should always and philosophically reject consensus. That is what brought us together to begin with. You all may not think jumping out of an intact airplane is a big deal and I agree, but most others do. The consensus of what we do is both irrational and highly useless to societal economics and structure. Therefore, we should always be aware of these realities and reject temptations to fall in line.

Finally, are you willing to pay triple the prizes for jumping off airplanes? Or simply not being able to at all without special permit? If the globalist-backed consensus in United Nations had their ways, you all would have to. There would be ZERO sympathy from the "global community" if we all could not do what we are doing.

Z-E-R-O

You can point at political influences and all you can say is that it applies to both points of view, unfortunately one point of view is backed by a scientific method of proof and prediction. The opposing point for view fails at every attempt to debunk this scientific evidence and even when they come close only help to refine this evidence, not disprove it.

As far as some comparison to skydiving...whatever, we're not talking about lifestyle choices. If 9 out of 10 doctors told me I had a medical issue and needed to take some action to address it then I would take that action to address it.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DrSher 0]

DJL

***

"Climate change" started for real to be politicized back in the mid-70's. I vaguely remember my parents telling me there would be a new ice age in "100 years". At that time, nobody thought much about it.

In the mid-80's, the European left was struggling to get a new issue as the classic proletarian pandering was not working well much more. After all, the middle class was large, most people had homes and comforts and there was no significant conflicts. Then, the green agenda started. The left embraced this as a possibility to postulate the Uber-government, where taxations and control was to be handed over to big government.

In these days, there was a term called "eco-fascists", who created all kinds of disturbances and in a "righteous" vigilantism.

By the early 90's corporate interests noticed how this was something to make a penny off and after the Y2K scam, it was realized how far they could go to extract something off mass consensus.

A skydiver should always and philosophically reject consensus. That is what brought us together to begin with. You all may not think jumping out of an intact airplane is a big deal and I agree, but most others do. The consensus of what we do is both irrational and highly useless to societal economics and structure. Therefore, we should always be aware of these realities and reject temptations to fall in line.

Finally, are you willing to pay triple the prizes for jumping off airplanes? Or simply not being able to at all without special permit? If the globalist-backed consensus in United Nations had their ways, you all would have to. There would be ZERO sympathy from the "global community" if we all could not do what we are doing.

Z-E-R-O

You can point at political influences and all you can say is that it applies to both points of view,
** I am not POINTING at it, but merely confirming the driving dynamics behind it. The European left hatched the climate change idea and later on sold out to corporate and crony influences. This is way beyond politics and purely about power control over the world.


unfortunately one point of view is backed by a scientific method of proof and prediction.
***Your assertion insinuates that the majority of people in the world are either dumb or ignorant. I find such a view to be not only haughty, but also condescending as He11.

The opposing point for view fails at every attempt to debunk this scientific evidence and even when they come close only help to refine this evidence, not disprove it.
***You are wrong!! Political hacks have hijacked an entire field of science and it has evolved to the point where the entire ordeal is fuelled by secrecy and crony-capitalism.
To say that it is without "scientific" evidence, is nothing but a continuation of the same dogmatic doctrine people were burned at the stake for 400 years ago. Now we are more humane. We merely destroy their career and freeze them out of the scientific society.


As far as some comparison to skydiving...whatever, we're not talking about lifestyle choices.
**The comparison is REAL because it will AFFECT our ability to skydive. It will shrink the sport into a narrower field of elitist who can afford it. What you call a "lifestyle choice" is the whole problem. Wait until healthcare gets involved in this..

If 9 out of 10 doctors told me I had a medical issue and needed to take some action to address it then I would take that action to address it.
**How do you know if it is "9 out of 10" or not?? Are you going to poll every doctor you see? Or are you going to let FB decide the best doctor for you?

So if you are an athlete that see 10 physicians and one warns you, would you then feel comfortable going with the advice of the former 9 to just ignore it?

When you cannot rationally think without using metrics in every sentence; when you confuse cause and effect with a rational INDIVIDUAL choice and how YOU would get affected; when you dismiss any "doubters" as obsessively doctrinal while preaching more synchronously focused than a laser beam, THEN you are not being serious either..





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dNbWGaaxWM

There is still lots of time to learn it..

[DJL 232]

Forget it. Feel free to enjoy the rest of your life.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[lnx 0]

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Some perspective on the rate of change of temperature, and a bit of amusing history.
You can scroll to the bottom if you don't want to read it all. It actually makes the point even clearer.