Science from the other side of Climate Change

[Diogenes]

There are nonetheless two problems with this book:

1. The title implies that science is discussed, but no science is discussed.
2. The term "climate change" is left completely undefined, like a religious term.

Climate is changing, as far as I can tell.

 

[IBDaMann]

Climate is changing, as far as I can tell.

The global climate hasn't changed one iota over my lifetime, and the ocean level hasn't risen any since at least as early as the late 1800s. The ocean's pH hasn't changed any since the Navy Research Labs have been monitoring.

How do you define the global climate?

 

[Diogenes]

'“It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison"

Richard Lidzen

 

[Nordberg]

'“It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison"

Richard Lidzen

Should I list all the climatologists and what they say? Over 97 percent know that climate is warming and we are a big part of it. the numbers are indisputable. But, you can find an outlier and post there. That mirrors what has gone wrong the last few decades. Etal time is given to anti science,.

 

[Into the Night]

...image...

The theories of science stand on their own, moron.

 

[Into the Night]

You can't laugh your way out of your problem, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, I'm in the anthropogenic CO2 is not a serious cause of climate change camp but that doesn't mean I believe the climate can't change and that human activity plays no role. That's just for clarity.

Anyone claiming "The climate cannot change" is either a moron or a fool--and likely both.

Climate cannot change. Go learn English. Mantra 1a. Lame.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You can't create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

Based on what, exactly?

Here's what we KNOW for certain:

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of absorbing IR (that has been known since the early 1800's)

All materials absorb infrared light. Big hairy deal. You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

2. CO2 and other greenhouse gases make up a small part of the atmosphere but are the reason the surface of the earth is about 30degC hotter than if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Argument from randU fallacy. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

3. There is currently an increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.

4. We know chemically that the majority of this additional added CO2 is coming from human activities.

CO2 has no identifier. It is not capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

So why WOULDN'T it lead to more warming?

The 1st law of thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

The Church of Global Warming has been chanting this kind of idiocy since the mid 80's.

 

[Into the Night]

And has been around for 4.5 billion years on Earth. What's your point?


On a geologic timescale, that isn't true. It can be demonstrated that CO2 levels and planetary temperatures don't share any strong correlation.

CO2 and temperature decoupling at the million-year scale during the Cretaceous Greenhouse - Scientific Reports

CO2 is considered the main greenhouse gas involved in the current global warming and the primary driver of temperature throughout Earth’s history. However, the soundness of this relationship across time scales and during different climate states of the Earth remains uncertain. Here we explore...

www.nature.com

A New 66 Million-Year History of Carbon Dioxide Offers Little Comfort for Today

Scientists have produced a new curve of how atmospheric carbon dioxide affects climate. It makes clear that its effects can be long lasting.

news.climate.columbia.edu

Does CO2 correlate with temperature history? – A look at multiple timescales in the context of the Shakun et al. paper

Guest post by Michael Pacnik Especially in the context of recent discussion of the Shakun et al. paper, a look at other sources for temperature history versus CO2 can be helpful, examining timescal…

wattsupwiththat.com

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2 or water vapor.

There is also a massive increase in contrails since the 1940's resulting in cirrus and altocirrus cloud cover at 80+% of the northern hemisphere (persistent spreading contrails) and slightly less in the southern hemisphere, as but one alternative to that. Water vapor in the form of clouds overwhelms CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the total water vapor on Earth. Clouds are not water vapor.

No gas or vapor or cloud has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Or not.

Because slightly more of nothing is still nothing. CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere.

Irrelevant. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. Neither water vapor nor clouds have the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

It goes up and down and the earth's temperature goes up and down as well because of it.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth nor the global atmospheric content of CO2.

Not always the only reason for climate changes but one that is real.

Climate cannot change. Go learn English.

That's possibly because CO2 is not the ONLY greenhouse gas and changes in earth surface temperatures are NOT solely due to greenhouse gases.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing, Twilight.

Gotta note here that H2O and CO2 behave VERY differently in the atmosphere.

Neither has any capability to warm the Earth, Twilight. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

When we have excess H2O in the atmosphere the excess can quickly be eliminated through the HYDROLOGIC CYCLE which acts quickly to rebalance the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. So any additional impact from it by itself would be limited. It is considered more of a FEEDBACK than a forcing.

Define 'excess'.

CO2 on the other hand has to use the CARBON CYCLE to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. It is a much longer process which means excess CO2 stays in the atmosphere and maintains its warming.

Define 'excess'

Let's not get bogged down in your disbelief because a number looks small to you. You have no way to estimating what the actual forcing value is.

Carbon dioxide is not a force. Water vapor is not a force.

Scientists, however, have done exactly that.

Denying theories of science isn't science, Twilight. Your religion isn't science.

It is a measure called CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

No such measure. Buzzword fallacy.

and it measures the amount of warming one would expect from a doubling of a given greenhouse gas.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

The climate forcing for CO2 is actually reasonably high.

CO2 is not a force. Climate is not a force.

A doubling of this small amount of material will still be quite small but it will result in anywhere from a 1.5degC-4.5degC increase in average surface temperature.

Argument from randU fallacy. Making up random numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy.

That number may also look small to you. 1 to 4 degrees? Doesn't sound bad. But that's the GLOBAL AVERAGE meaning that it is actually ENORMOUS in effect. Moving the GLOBAL AVERAGE of the entire planet by 1-4 deg is almost unimaginable in scope of tragedy. Our society is pretty much toast if that happens.

Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Should I list all the climatologists and what they say?

Who cares? Climatologists are nothing more then priests in the Church of Global Warming.

Over 97 percent know that climate is warming and we are a big part of it. the numbers are indisputable.

Argument from randU fallacy. Stop making up numbers.
Climate cannot warm. Climate has no temperature. Climate has no numbers. Climate cannot change. Go learn English.

But, you can find an outlier and post there. That mirrors what has gone wrong the last few decades. Etal time is given to anti science,.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

Should I list all the climatologists and what they say? Over 97 percent know that climate is warming and we are a big part of it. the numbers are indisputable. But, you can find an outlier and post there. That mirrors what has gone wrong the last few decades. Etal time is given to anti science,.

Repetition fallacy (chanting).

 

[ZenMode]

The theories of science stand on their own, moron.

Theories can't stand.

 

[Into the Night]

Theories can't stand.

Every theory of science stands on it's own, Void.

 

[ZenMode]

Every theory of science stands on it's own, Void.

Theories of science have no legs. Void.

 

[Diogenes]

The global climate hasn't changed one iota over my lifetime, and the ocean level hasn't risen any since at least as early as the late 1800s. The ocean's pH hasn't changed any since the Navy Research Labs have been monitoring.

Is that so?

 

[Diogenes]

I doubt the validity of the ‘settled science’ that claims humans have created a 'climate crisis'.

I doubt that undemocratic 'Net Zero policies' will have any impact on global temperature.

I doubt the validity of the idea that US citizens should be made poorer in order to fund 'climate change' initiatives in 'developing countries', some of whom are actually wealthy.

I doubt that America surrendering its sovereignty to the UN to 'save the planet' is a good thing,

I doubt that banning plastic straws and doubling the use of plastics in the manufacture of EVs will stop the climate changing.

I doubt that poor people are emigrating to richer countries because they're fleeing 'global warming'.

I doubt that paying more taxes will cause any change in the world's climate.

I doubt that the carbon credit scheme that makes people like Al Gore richer, will affect the climate.

I doubt that employing poor children to mine lithium will 'save the planet'.

I doubt that large global farming conglomerates pushing small farmers out of business will make the climate cooler.

I doubt that unreliable renewable energy will be cheaper because my taxes are subsidizing it.

I doubt that selective funding of climate science is in the interests of informed choice or democracy.

 

[Litmus]

He said additional.

energy is always additional.

it's a flow.

 

[Litmus]

boy, zenmode sure is retarded!