patrick.net

TwoScoopsPlissken says

In any case, now is the time for a complete embargo of Africa and to start developing and spraying birth control there.

Didn't realize the Africans had such a large carbon footprint.

IPCC Climate Models are wayyyyyy off from observed reality. Until their predictions fall closer to observed reality, they should be discounted.



We literally have to have an increase of 1C in the next decade to match the average of 102 historical IPCC forecasts.

Can you link the study you pulled that chart from?

Onvacation says

Interesting? Makes me wonder about the methodology. Do you have a source for the "isotopic signature" study?

Do you have Google on your computer?

HappyGilmore says

anon_01798 says

Why not? According to the alarmists, CO2 raises the temperature, and everyone knows plants love CO2.

Aren't both of those situations (warmer and more CO2) beneficial to plants?

Depends on what it does to relative humidity. Last I checked, plants don't love the Sahara. Nor do they love getting 8" of rain in a day.

Yes, let's go to extreme statements when a narrative is blown up. Typical.

Alarmists, please abandon this nonsense. You are making yourselves a permanent source of ridicule. When you post your bunk as scientific fact, it stays up for future readers to laugh at your arrogance.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

We literally have to have an increase of 1C in the next decade to match the average of 102 historical IPCC forecasts.

I'm just glad that this trend happened while CO2 levels are supposedly high, since then these clowns would start taking credit for lowering the temperature.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

... Except the graph of real temperatures looks like this:

TwoScoopsPlissken says

IPCC Climate Models are wayyyyyy off from observed reality. Until their predictions fall closer to observed reality, they should be discounted.

There is even a gif debunking your image:

The busting "gif" commits it's own flaws. If the middle range of both are shown, there's still a missing .5C warming that needs to be fulfilled by the end of the decade.

Again, it all goes back to how much CO2/PPM = how much Temperature Increase. If this basic question can't be answered, the science isn't close to being settled

I saw a bunch of CO2 Alarmist websites that reminded me of all the Doomsday Clocks, Buy Iraqi Dinars, and Gold to $10,000/oz over the years. Generally, betting against complex models is a winner, IMHO.

Heraclitusstudent says

Sprawl is very energy intensive.

Spawl as you call it, is just a sub-component of city. For me there's city, then there's country. Like I said, move to the country. Also, you kind of missed my thing about plants eating up carbon dioxide. Now what living situation has the most plant life..?

Heraclitusstudent says

   

Onvacation says

Interesting? Makes me wonder about the methodology. Do you have a source for the "isotopic signature" study?

Do you have Google on your computer?

Found it:
"because of the nature of organic plant decay that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin. "

Another bogus alarmist theory.

Why a gif, if only to disallow any serious dissection of the displayed information...
A manually controlled slideshow would have given more validity to the subject matter...

Heraclitusstudent says

TwoScoopsPlissken says

IPCC Climate Models are wayyyyyy off from observed reality. Until their predictions fall closer to observed reality, they should be discounted.

There is even a gif debunking your image:

BlueSardine says

Why a gif, if only to disallow any serious dissection of the displayed information...
A manually controlled slideshow would have given more validity to the subject matter.

What next? Are you going to say that the creator of the gif drives a red car, and only people with blue cars are trustworthy?

Onvacation says

because of the nature of organic plant decay that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus.

I googled this quote, and found that they author claimed that the IPCC touted research is stating that there is no C13 in plants today. They never claimed that. They merely claimed that plants today have a lower C13/C12 ratio than oil. Fucking weird that such a misstatement would get such traction. Furthermore, the extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is what you can calculate based on how much fossil fuels we have burned. So, it's just another line of evidence, strengthening the case for what should be obvious.

anon_61c8a says

So, it's just another line of evidence, strengthening the case for what should be obvious.

So, how much has the temp gone up in the last 2 centuries?
Why is the earth cooling now?

anon_61c8a says

So, it's just another line of evidence, strengthening the case for what should be obvious.

Please state your obvious case. Is it that the world is warming uncontrollably? It's not. Is it that co2 is linked to warming? It isn't?

What are you trying to say?

So charts displayed for 2 seconds constitutes irrefutable evidence. I see...
anon_61c8a says

BlueSardine says

Why a gif, if only to disallow any serious dissection of the displayed information...
A manually controlled slideshow would have given more validity to the subject matter.

What next? Are you going to say that the creator of the gif drives a red car, and only people with blue cars are trustworthy?

BlueSardine says

So charts displayed for 2 seconds constitutes irrefutable evidence. I see...

Yes, everyone knows that there is a 3 second minimum for a chart to be irrefutable.

Onvacation says

Why is the earth cooling now?

Why do you think the Earth is cooling now?

anon_f3a24 says

Why do you think the Earth is cooling now?

The earth is cooling because of the suns diminishing output.

Onvacation says

The earth is cooling because of the suns diminishing output.

I see. So how much is the sun's output falling?

What is the optimal output from the sun?

anon_f3a24 says

I see. So how much is the sun's output falling?

Not much. Just a little more than it was warming. Not much.

Google solar cycles. It will be educational!

Onvacation says

Google solar cycles. It will be educational!

Oh yeah because solar cycle drove temperatures many times in the past:

Heraclitusstudent says

in the past:

What have you done with the 1930s dustbowl?
It was warmer than now.
You do know that Skeptical science is one of those alarmist sites that scares children? Don't you?

Onvacation says

What have you done with the 1930s dustbowl?

How large is the dust bowl globally?

Heraclitusstudent says

How large is the dust bowl globally?

The dustbowl was an American climate event. Was.
The climate is constantly changing and the alarmist are in denial of this fact. They claim that less than 2 degrees (manipulated) over 2 centuries is alarming and deny that it was ever warmer than NOW (I meant 2016 it's cooler now).

Onvacation says

You do know that Skeptical science is one of those alarmist sites that scares children? Don't you?

Oops...

anon_f3a24 says

Onvacation says

Why is the earth cooling now?

Why do you think the Earth is cooling now?

Lack of sunspots.

I wish I had saved this temp chart I found. It actually came from an alarmist website.

It showed a spike in CO2 exactly when regular direct measurements began at Mauna Loa and the ice core samples ended.

It sure looked to me like the ice core proxies are underreporting CO2. Very possible because of how ice melts and refreezes several times before becoming permanent ice (if ever), and why (ie atmospheric temp OR weight pressure)

TwoScoopsPlissken says

It sure looked to me like the ice core proxies are underreporting CO2. Very possible because of how ice melts and refreezes several times before becoming permanent ice (if ever), and why (ie atmospheric temp OR weight pressure)

We see CO2 concentrations increasing.
We see an increase in absorbed IR radiations by the atmosphere in the frequencies where they are absorbed by CO2.
We see an increase in heat in the ocean, ocean surface temps, we see ice melting.
We see sun radiation NOT increasing, averaged for 11 yr cycle.

Can we admit the things that were directly measures at least, once and for all?
These are not models or proxies. They are direct measures.

Onvacation says

Not much. Just a little more than it was warming. Not much.

Google solar cycles. It will be educational!

So what you're saying is the sun's output is falling, you don't know by how much, you can't cite any data, and the earth is cooling just cuz.

How is this a conversation?

Onvacation says

They claim that less than 2 degrees (manipulated) over 2 centuries is alarming

Not sure again why you talk of 2 degrees.
What I have heard is ASSUMING we limit the CO2 increase to double what it was before the industrial era, i.e. 550ppm, then there is a range of possibilities from +1.5C to +5C in corresponding warming.

+1.5C is maybe even beneficial depending where you live.
+ 5C is a catastrophic event that would destroy the livelihoods of billions around the planet and be massively disruptive. As in Famines, Pestilences and Wars.
Even a 10% chance of that justifies massive policy actions.

But of course, all this only applies ONLY if massive changes are made to limit CO2 to 550ppm, stopping most CO2 emissions.
Otherwise there is no upper range. You can get +10C if you like it.

Patrick says

Carbon Doomsday

A truly controversial topic.
What we should be debating is pollution, not climate change. No one disagrees that we have too much pollution. If we solve the pollution problem with clean energy, the climate change debate is rendered obsolete.
Does anyone here like breathing fresh smog?

Heraclitusstudent says

We see CO2 concentrations increasing.

Wouldn't you agree that co2 is insignificant compared to h2o as a greenhouse gas?

Heraclitusstudent says

Not sure again why you talk of 2 degrees.

OK. LESS than 2 degrees warming over the last 2 centuries.
Alarmists seldom talk about real numbers.

Heraclitusstudent says

What I have heard is ASSUMING we limit the CO2 increase to double what it was before the industrial era,

How can CO2 be "limited", when so much of it occurs naturally on earth? Are we going to pour concrete over the complete planet to seal the ground?

Wake me up when CO2 approaches the levels of many other gases on the planet, and is no longer a TRACE gas.

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

We see CO2 concentrations increasing.

Wouldn't you agree that co2 is insignificant compared to h2o as a greenhouse gas?

Those pesky facts about water vapor.

An injectable gene at birth that will allow humans to photosynthesize will take care of this problem, along with unlimited immigration.

Just found out that Thorium is a byproduct of rare earth refining. Mostly to make those false eco-friendly ev batteries. Good news, can be used in molten salt reactors, which we need to start building like crazy for our ever expanding energy needs.