3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

“Remember, we are talking about global warming, not global warmer.  If the black line is not on top than it is bon appetit for the reality denying warmists.”

So.....what's "warming"?   And the black line from this graph that shows this year's temperatures as being the third highest on average?  What did you think was going to happen with the line since those first four data points were already shown and we were waiting on the fifth one?  The entire line wasn't going to move up, your claim was that it was going to show something we weren't seeing but now we have the fifth data point and it's showing the exact same trend that the temperature for this year is approximately 0.85C above the 100 year average in a continuous and well recorded track from the beginning of the last century.ytd-horserace-201905.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

"Let me explain, no there is too much let me sum up"

1  CO2 does not now nor has ever controlled global temperatures

2  Higher temperatures have NOT resulted in an statically significant increase in floods, droughts, cyclonic storms or wildfires

3  Historically high levels of CO2 have been beneficial to life on this planet 

4  No CO2 mitigation regime can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis

 

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

"Let me explain, no there is too much let me sum up"

1  CO2 does not now nor has ever has controlled global temperatures

2  Higher temperatures have NOT resulted in an statically significant increase in floods, droughts, cyclonic storms or wildfires

3  Historically high levels of CO2 have been beneficial to life on this planet 

4  No CO2 mitigation regime can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, billvon said:

To quote one of your own:

That is just ONE dayta point - 

GHEEZE - you say weather isn't climate change - don't you think the weather was the cause of that?

You are going to have to pick a position and stay there.  You move around more than the goal posts in this thread.

One of What?

You couldn't read the sarcasm in that?  

That's sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 

Look at it this way - 

If you fertilize your yard and water it - it gets greener and more lush.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere it make the planet warmer do to physics and chemical reactions.

Same stuff - We are fertilizing the warming trend by adding CO2 

Get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

1 CO2 does not now nor has ever has controlled global temperatures

2  Higher temperatures have NOT resulted in an statically significant increase in floods, droughts, cyclonic storms or wildfires

3  Historically high levels of CO2 have been beneficial to life on this planet 

4  No CO2 mitigation regime can pass a simple cost/benefit analysis

No one claims CO2 "controls global temperatures."  More CO2 simply makes it a few degrees warmer.

Higher temps cause droughts.  Basic earth science.

CO2 is indeed beneficial, as is almost every other component of our atmosphere.  Too much (or too little) messes with the ecosystem, which has adapted over the past 10,000 years or so to a level of about 280ppm.  Like the climate like it is?  Then best not to mess with it as hard as you can.

Solar is already cheaper than coal, and replacing coal with solar is one of the best mitigation strategies around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billvon said:

And fertilize it too much and you kill it.

Yeah - That doesn't really fit - We do not have the ability to kill the globe.

Change it - Make it inhospitable to life as we know it - but Not Kill it - 

It would have to become a brown husk with no life.

We would be long gone before that happened and the earth couldn't support any life anymore.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

DINNER IS SERVED!

Global temps for May are COOLER than in 2015, 2016 and 2017.  Yes folks its true!  Despite gigatons of additional CO2 and a rebranding from "climate change" to "climate emergency"  the planet's temperature stubbornly refuses to  climb up that ol' hockey stick.

Bon Appetit! 

PS Sorry for the delay but I had to wait until NOAA published its data.

https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/265942-green-new-deal-equals-magical-thinking/?do=findComment&comment=4865507

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Look at it this way - 

If you fertilize your yard and water it - it gets greener and more lush.

If you add CO2 to the atmosphere it make the planet warmer do to physics and chemical reactions.

Same stuff - We are fertilizing the warming trend by adding CO2 

Get it?

Not to mention that some of the runoff causes problems in rivers, streams, ponds, and the ocean. 

Yeah, some dude might have a greener lawn (or better yield).  However, is it worth the cost to everyone else of having a pond you can no longer swim in because of Cyanobacteria?

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 hours ago, billvon said:

No one claims CO2 "controls global temperatures."  More CO2 simply makes it a few degrees warmer.

Higher temps cause droughts.  Basic earth science.

I think you meant to say a few hundredths of a degree warmer

Lack of water NOT higher temps cause droughts.  Basic earth science.

(BTW Higher levels of CO2 in the air allow plants to absorb the same amount of carbon whilst opening their stomata for much shorter periods, thus losing less water due to evaporation.)

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the science is NOT settled

"In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources.

200+ new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields)."

It can be a bit lonely for me on SC but its nice to know that the scientific community has my back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Apparently the science is NOT settled

"In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources.

200+ new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields)."

It can be a bit lonely for me on SC but its nice to know that the scientific community has my back.

Cleverly omitting a source citation.  Try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Apparently the science is NOT settled

"In the first 5½ months of 2019, over 200 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and ²²²²mainstream media sources.

Wow, you are quoting BREITBART now?  Sorry to lose you to right wing conspiracy nuts.  

From Snopes:

===========================

Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?

An article on Breitbart News used flawed interpretations from a climate skeptic blog to amplify a grossly inaccurate understanding of climatological research.

ALEX KASPRAK  PUBLISHED 8 JUNE 2017

On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors. 

The basic thesis presented by No Tricks Zone is that these graphs, which are inferred records of things like temperature and precipitation from specific localities through time, show that the climatological changes happening right now are neither dramatic nor man made. The charts highlight times from the somewhat recent pre-industrial past that were either warmer or more dramatically variable then they are now, or show evidence of change attributed to clear natural causes. As Breitbart puts it:

What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.

This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.

A representative response came from Paul Mayewski, author of one of the studies included on the No Tricks Zone list and director of the University of Maine’s Climate Change Institute:

They are absolutely incorrect!!!!  Quite the opposite, the paper deals with the impacts of greenhouse gas warming and Antarctic ozone depletion — both human caused — and describes future scenarios.  Yet another example of downright lies.

Outside of the fact that all of these papers have squiggly lines that represent climatological change through time, they cover a diverse range of highly technical topics and have little in common with each other. In many cases, listed studies are applicable only to a very specific region and were created not to investigate the influence of humans on climate, but to understand how the climate system works in general.

This was the case for University of Washington PhD candidate Bradley Markle, whose paper (“Global Atmospheric Teleconnections During Dansgaard-Oeschger Events”) was also included in the No Tricks Zone:

My study, and almost all I saw mentioned on the blog post, are studies of climate change in the past. My study investigates connections between different parts of the climate system during climate events that happened over 10,000 years ago. Studying climate change in the past can provide context for recent climate change. However, my study in no way investigates or tries to attribute the causes of recent climate change. It does not deal with human influences on climate at all.

This echoes the response of USGS research scientist Julie Richey, whose paper (“Multi-Species Coral Sr/Ca-based Sea-Surface Temperature Reconstruction Using Orbicella Faveolata and Siderastrea Siderea from the Florida Straits”) really resonated with the Breitbart science desk:

Our paper presents a 280-year sea surface temperature record based on the ratio of strontium to calcium in corals we sampled in the Dry Tortugas National Park. It shows that sea surface temperatures measured over many decades in the Florida Straits are variable, and that variation has been dominated for nearly the past three centuries by a natural oscillation called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. […] Neither of these findings refutes the role of anthropogenic activity in global climate change.

Many researchers told us that, even by the crude metrics of the No Tricks Zone post, and even without intending to address anthropogenic climate change in their research, their papers’ data actually support anthropogenically driven recent warming. This was the case for Claremont McKenna professor Branwen Williams, whose paper (“North Pacific 20th Century Decadal-Scale Variability Is Unique for the Past 342 Years”) was featured:

I do not agree with this assessment of my work. The seawater temperature data clearly show a warming.

=============================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I think you meant to say a few hundredths of a degree warmer.

 

Nope.  A few degrees - specifically 1.7 degrees F.

Quote

Lack of water NOT higher temps cause droughts.  Basic earth science.

Nope.  Temperature increases evaporation rates.  If an area has exactly the same precipitation from one year to the next, but the second year is an average 5F warmer, it will be much more likely to enter drought conditions.  This is high school level earth science.

First Breitbart, now this?  What's next?  "There's only one problem with climate change - it ended in 1998"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Do you doubt the veracity of my post?  Would you feel better if I told you it was from the Union of Concerned Scientists? 

IF you told me that I would feel that you are a liar.

It's by Kenneth Richard, a "mental health professional" who does not work for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

My cousin (by marriage) however, is Deputy Director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

  From Snopes:

===========================

Did 58 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Say Global Warming is a Myth?

 

=============================

You must have missed the part about 2019.

BTW your simplistic view of heat = drought is appropriate for a high school level of education.  In the real world, humidity, wind and cloud cover also play a role.  Not to mention warmer conditions can and often do = longer growing season.  You are also ignoring the beneficial effect that elevated levels of CO2 have on plants that live on the margins.  Not to mention the simple fact that despite slightly elevated global temperatures we are not witnessing an increase in global drought conditions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, kallend said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:
38 minutes ago, kallend said:

IF you told me that I would feel that you are a liar.

It's by Kenneth Richard, a "mental health professional" who does not work for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

My cousin (by marriage) however, is Deputy Director.

 

Why does that not surprise me.  I had a feeling that you would be at least tangentially associated with the Union of Concerned Socialists, uh I mean Scientists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

 

Why does that not surprise me.  I had a feeling that you would be at least tangentially associated with the Union of Concerned Socialists, uh I mean Scientists.

Your statement suggesting that the article was from the UCS was a total fabrication.  Pretty much like everything else you post here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You must have missed the part about 2019.

Nope.  

I figure you posted that, hoping that no one would check to see where it came from.  You got caught; better luck fooling us next time.

Quote

BTW your simplistic view of heat = drought is appropriate for a high school level of education.  In the real world, humidity, wind and cloud cover also play a role.  Not to mention warmer conditions can and often do = longer growing season.

IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGES, more heat means more drought.  Simple as that.

Yes, you can say "oh, but it's going to rain more since the climate is changing!"  Actually I'd like to see you say that.  It would be funny to place that next to all your claims that no one can predict what's going to happen.

Or I could take your approach.  What's going to make it rain more?  Unicorn farts?  Maybe unicorn pee!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kallend said:

Your statement suggesting that the article was from the UCS was a total fabrication.  Pretty much like everything else you post here.

I made no such statement.  I asked a question, a rhetorical one at that.  To think otherwise is willful ignorance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3