Climate continues to change.

[gunthernehmen]

https://news.usc.edu/153926/how-undersea-carbon-reservoirs-once-helped-superheat-earth/

Moreover, other similar events have happened in the distant past, helping shape the Earth’s environment over and over again. In earlier research, Stott discovered a large, carbon anomaly that occurred 55 million years ago. It disrupted the ocean’s chemistry, causing extensive dissolution of marine carbonates and the extinction of many marine organisms. The ocean changes were accompanied by a rapid rise in global temperatures, an event called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maxima (PETM), a period lasting less than 20,000 years during which so much carbon was released to the atmosphere that Earth’s temperatures surged to about 8 degrees Celsius hotter than today.

I guess we've been doing this ACC thing for at least the past 60 million years.

 

[trysail]

https://www.livescience.com/july-hottest-month-ever-record-climate-change.html

July Was the Hottest Month Ever Recorded on Earth

☝

Not true.



NOT the Hottest Month Ever Recorded on Earth


​

 

[gunthernehmen]

☝

Not true.



NOT the Hottest Month Ever Recorded on Earth


​

Quit bringing facts into a religious argument!

 

[phrodeau]

Quit bringing facts into a religious argument!

If only he had facts about global temps. The only facts in the video are about US temps, not global ones. July wasn’t the hottest month ever in the US. So what?

 

[Hal9000_]

If only he had facts about global temps. The only facts in the video are about US temps, not global ones. July wasn’t the hottest month ever in the US. So what?

He should tell the poor bastards in India that it's all fake when their daytime temp reached over 123F.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_heat_wave_in_India_and_Pakistan

"Heat waves worldwide have become more extreme and more frequent due to human-influenced climate change and global warming.[15][16][17] Since 2004, India and Pakistan have experienced 11 of its 15 warmest recorded years.[18] The frequency and duration of heat waves in India and Pakistan has increased.

 

[thør]

I'd get fined by the HOA. However, I agree in concept. I like the wilderness look.

You live where there is an HOA?


That's too fucking funny.

 

[thør]

Also, if the core of the earth is slowly cooling, why are we getting warmer on the surface?

It might be slowly cooling, but it was 6000°F when I was in high school, and now, it's 8000°F.

Did someone get a new calculator that does square root??

 

[Hal9000_]

It might be slowly cooling, but it was 6000°F when I was in high school, and now, it's 8000°F.

Did someone get a new calculator that does square root??

I see what you're getting at, but we've already gone over "estimating by indirect observations". That is only one factor.

Maybe you're right. Maybe next year some new evidence based on better and more precise and accurate measurements will come out that disprove the entire concept of AGW.

In the meantime, mountains pointing exactly to it keep piling up.

 

[thør]

Maybe next year some new evidence based on better and more precise and accurate measurements will come out that disprove the entire concept of AGW.

Ain't happening. Because, GW is happening. The reasoning for it is left to the arrogant. I just design for it in my work.

Maybe someone will have a better idea of exactly what's happening? But currently, anyone who makes a quantitative prediction will be wrong, unless they are lucky guessers.

 

[lustatopia]

If only he had facts about global temps. The only facts in the video are about US temps, not global ones. July wasn’t the hottest month ever in the US. So what?

I guess that means that "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past."

http://web.archive.org/web/20150723...-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

No wait! Put that down the memory hole.... Blizzards are now caused by Global Warming.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/1/150126-blizzard-weather-climate-northeast-science/

Just not in the summer time. 'Cause, like, it's super hot in summer, dude...
the salmon are exploding too.

 

[heathergives]

I see what you're getting at, but we've already gone over "estimating by indirect observations". That is only one factor.

Maybe you're right. Maybe next year some new evidence based on better and more precise and accurate measurements will come out that disprove the entire concept of AGW.

In the meantime, mountains pointing exactly to it keep piling up.

No one with any common sense can deny climate change. It's a scientific fact. In any case, change is inevitable as it occurs every single day in the Universe. Some "experts" claim that AGW is just a prerequisite to a ACW, the precursor to another "Little Ice Age." More accurately, the question is: is humanity causing climate change, or is it the natural evolution of the planet? In either case, what can be done about it, and...should we do anything about it? That would seem to depend on one's political persuasion rather than hard science.

Given that the accepted age of Earth is about 4.5 billion years, How can modern science, the beginning of which is generally considered to be during the life of Aristotle (circa 335 and 323 BC), slightly more than 2000 years ago be considered a control for something that has existed for literally billions of years before?

I suspect that we need at least a half a billion years more to establish our hypothesis and conclusion, what do you think?

 

[Hal9000_]

Ain't happening. Because, GW is happening. The reasoning for it is left of to the arrogant. I just design for it in my work.

Maybe someone will have a better idea of exactly what's happening? But currently, anyone who makes a quantitative prediction will be wrong, unless they are lucky guessers.

I will freely admit the full dynamics of such a fluid and complex system as global climate is ... an astronomically large model to attempt to predict. Indeterminate and variable changing weighted amounts of factors. No certain benchmarks or control parameters.

But...thermodynamics requires something to happen when a forcing agent is applied to the system.

The suspension will always return to equilibrium, one way or another.

 

[Hal9000_]

In either case, what can be done about it, and...should we do anything about it? That would seem to depend on one's political persuasion rather than hard science.

Back to the old "it's too late" fatalistic argument, eh?

Carbon sequestration, better controls on pollution and emissions, along with alternative sources of energy.

Of course, although I've said several times the main problem is long term energy storage.

Gasoline is currently the most cost efficient energy dense substance there is.

But that can change.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Back to the old "it's too late" fatalistic argument, eh?

Carbon sequestration, better controls on pollution and emissions, along with alternative sources of energy.

Of course, although I've said several times the main problem is long term energy storage.

Gasoline is currently the most cost efficient energy dense substance there is.

But that can change.

Some of that is common sense. We should control pollution within reason. (and we do).

Alternative energy, well, there are currently two possibilities for our general purpose energy requirements: fossil and nuclear. There are no renewable alternatives that have no devastating effects on the environment once scaled up to the demands of an industrial society. Solar, wind, hydro and yes, even tidal have their niche roles. They'll just never become the start of the show. Solar and wind SHINE in remote locations that are difficult or expensive to connect to the grid.

But you start to worry me when you start talking about sequestration and the like. You just don't realize the effect you may have down the line. You don't even acknowledge the possibility that you don't know. I'm not kidding here. That's a great plot for a futuristic horror movie or book: How the "destroyers" of the 21st century tried to save the Earth and killed us all. You're potentially a greater menace to our survival than the global warming, whether or not caused by us.

 

[phrodeau]

Oh, dear christ, more of that very tired mantra.



Seventeen (17) years of no warming. Zero. Nil. None. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Bupkis.

Dr. Lindzen: ...we agree that man should have some effect. And I think we agree that climate changes. And these are the areas that people point to when they say there is consensus. But none of this tells us there is a problem.

Yeo (M.P.): Do you go further and say we shouldn’t do anything about it?

Dr. Lindzen: I’m saying that not only we don’t know what to do about it but that almost everything proposed would have very certain consequences for people – and very uncertain consequences for the environment . . . It is clear that there is no policy that is better than doing nothing.”


-Richard H. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences




​

What happened to the “17 years without warming” argument? I haven’t seen it in a long time.

 

[thør]

I will freely admit the full dynamics of such a fluid and complex system as global climate is ... an astronomically large model to attempt to predict. Indeterminate and variable changing weighted amounts of factors. No certain benchmarks or control parameters.

But...thermodynamics requires something to happen when a forcing agent is applied to the system.

The suspension will always return to equilibrium, one way or another.

Yet, the climate has never been at 'equilibrium'.

 

[lustatopia]

Yet, the climate has never been at 'equilibrium'.

A climate at temperature equilibrium would be dead. Just like a corpse is at temperature equilibrium.

 

[lustatopia]

What happened to the “17 years without warming” argument? I haven’t seen it in a long time.

Exactly. What about that 17 year long warming hiatus? How does the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis explain warming pauses? It doesn't. It predicts that there should be no pauses or cooling events.

The usefulness of a hypothesis is how well it explains observed phenomena. Perhaps a pause in warming does not entirely negate the usefulness of the AGW hypothesis, but it is definitely a weakness.

The science is not settled. And if the science is not settled then how can one propose ways to adjust climate so that it is not too hot, not too cool, but just right. Well, you can't because we do not understand how the climate works, much less how to control it.

At our constantly rising levels of CO2 - according the the AGW hypothesis - we should see constantly rising temperatures keeping pace with the CO2 curve. We don't see that exactly. This means there must be other factors involved with the climate that are in fact more powerful than the climate forcing of CO2. This would be hardly surprising.

When you combine the AGW hypotheis' failure to explain or predict the two 20th cooling spells which were rather more significant then the most recent hiatus, curious minds must wonder.

And less charitable minds wonder about the disingenuity of suggesting radical proposals to alter the global economy based upon a weak hypothesis that has been shown to fail to make useful forecasts.

 

[Hal9000_]

Yet, the climate has never been at 'equilibrium'.

It hasn't?

Actually, of course not.

Any solution can only attempt to reach that true state.

 

[phrodeau]

Exactly. What about that 17 year long warming hiatus? How does the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis explain warming pauses? It doesn't. It predicts that there should be no pauses or cooling events.

The usefulness of a hypothesis is how well it explains observed phenomena. Perhaps a pause in warming does not entirely negate the usefulness of the AGW hypothesis, but it is definitely a weakness.

The science is not settled. And if the science is not settled then how can one propose ways to adjust climate so that it is not too hot, not too cool, but just right. Well, you can't because we do not understand how the climate works, much less how to control it.

At our constantly rising levels of CO2 - according the the AGW hypothesis - we should see constantly rising temperatures keeping pace with the CO2 curve. We don't see that exactly. This means there must be other factors involved with the climate that are in fact more powerful than the climate forcing of CO2. This would be hardly surprising.

When you combine the AGW hypotheis' failure to explain or predict the two 20th cooling spells which were rather more significant then the most recent hiatus, curious minds must wonder.

And less charitable minds wonder about the disingenuity of suggesting radical proposals to alter the global economy based upon a weak hypothesis that has been shown to fail to make useful forecasts.

What 17-year warming hiatus?

 

[Hal9000_]

What 17-year warming hiatus?

So far...

Acceptance (kind of), but with caveat: (Nothing will be done differently!).

Also, "MAYBE doing anything different will result in absolute destruction of the human race!"

Meanwhile:



https://qz.com/1692804/fires-in-the-amazon-rainforests-were-likely-intentional/

 

[gunthernehmen]

So far...

Acceptance (kind of), but with caveat: (Nothing will be done differently!).

Also, "MAYBE doing anything different will result in absolute destruction of the human race!"

Speaking for myself. I accept that climate changes. So do you. We disagree on the reasons.

YOU contend that Humans are the root cause yet you refuse to change anything.

If we caused it then man up and give up those things that contribute to the "problem". Yet you continue to use electricity in your comfortable home.

You have this fantasy that you can KEEP your comforts by dreaming up these mad scientist ideas like tidal generators or corking volcanos. And the hilarious part is you don't even see the hypocrisy in solving your man made problems using even more fanciful schemes. It's pure comedy gold.

Also I'm not falling for the old virus laden link trick.

 

[Hal9000_]

Speaking for myself. I accept that climate changes. So do you. We disagree on the reasons.

YOU contend that Humans are the root cause yet you refuse to change anything.

If we caused it then man up and give up those things that contribute to the "problem". Yet you continue to use electricity in your comfortable home.

You have this fantasy that you can KEEP your comforts by dreaming up these mad scientist ideas like tidal generators or corking volcanos. And the hilarious part is you don't even see the hypocrisy in solving your man made problems using even more fanciful schemes. It's pure comedy gold.

Also I'm not falling for the old virus laden link trick.

Ah...an all new fallacy!

Any distraction away from the obvious.

Pumping out and burning oil does nothing.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Speaking for myself. I accept that climate changes. So do you. We disagree on the reasons.

YOU contend that Humans are the root cause yet you refuse to change anything.

If we caused it then man up and give up those things that contribute to the "problem". Yet you continue to use electricity in your comfortable home.

You have this fantasy that you can KEEP your comforts by dreaming up these mad scientist ideas like tidal generators or corking volcanos. And the hilarious part is you don't even see the hypocrisy in solving your man made problems using even more fanciful schemes. It's pure comedy gold.

Also I'm not falling for the old virus laden link trick.

Man that's a bucket full of stupid right there.

 

[lustatopia]

What 17-year warming hiatus?

No shit, Sherlock. The facts don't matter, do they?'

I spent some time back in the day trying to convince fundamentalist Christians who took the Bible literally that the science version of genesis which includes, obviously, evolution, is not incompatible with the good book. Ancient Christian texts were written as metaphor and allegories for goat herding nomads not as a literal truth. Never converted anyone.

But I did come to understand the epistemology of religious thought. Faith is based upon revelation. Revelation is a numinous experience. It's not irrational. It's unrational. There is a difference. It's just another way of knowing and one that evolved millions of years ago. And it works great in unrational situations. Such as fleeing from hungry lions. Lots of shit doesn't require semiotic abstract reasoning skills.

This kind of ancient pre-rational experience of knowledge is so hardwired into us that most of the time we are on autopilot just doing stuff, like driving cars or jogging without thinking about it. We don't have to rationally question every step of a walk in the park, obviously.

Unrational thinking also allows us to accept a holistic worldview once, then turn our brains off to new information and run on auto-pilot. The brain uses a lot of energy thinking, so if we can do most things without thinking, this gives us an evolutionary advantage.

I respect religious people because most of them understand their faith is based upon revelation and not reason. If their faith was based upon reason then it wouldn't be faith, it would be common sense. Faith is always opposed to common sense at some level. Modern religious people are able to separate reason and faith. For instance, it is possible to be a Moslem and a physicist at the same time, because faith and reason have their own realms and the twain rarely intersect.

Not so with modern secular faiths, such as Scientology, Marxism and Climate Millenarianism. Secular faiths don't separate logic and reason from their faith. Instead they appropriate a sciencey illusion of reason as a form of evangelical authority. Imaginary ideas like "scientific consensus" exist to support their faith. As if we can determine the physical laws of the universe by a show of hands. Or "The Science is Settled." As if science ever stops examining new evidence.

So, yes. It makes perfect sense that you don't see the early 21st warming hiatus.