patrick.net

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.

Onvacation says

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

"Alarmists" are not "alarmists" about the past.

Onvacation says

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

So what? It's CO2 we add.

Heraclitusstudent says

So what? It's CO2 we add.

Insignificant doubled or tripled or even quadrupled is still insignificant.
So
Onvacation says

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

Heraclitusstudent says

Onvacation says

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

So what? It's CO2 we add.

A very little amount.

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

"Alarmists" are not "alarmists" about the past.

Those that forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
Sorry.

anon_20fca says

A very little amount.

And a little goes a long way..

anon_20fca says

A very little amount.

Water vapor already absorbs outgoing IR radiations for given frequencies. This is part of normal climate.

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are different from water vapor. Frequencies that previously were leaking out in space.
What happens when you fill a bucket that has a hole and you plug the hole? It fills up. In this case with heat.

Not only that but the extra heat means more water vapor, and even more out going radiation is absorbed.

Onvacation says

Those that forget their history are condemned to repeat it.

What does that even mean?
The next 200yrs will look like the past 200?
Unlikely. For very obvious reasons.

HappyGilmore says

anon_20fca says

A very little amount.

And a little goes a long way..

Then the water vapor must go "parabolic", right?

Sniper says

Heraclitusstudent says

heat means more water vapor

what is the original source of that heat?

Heraclitusstudent says

Water vapor already absorbs outgoing IR radiations for given frequencies. This is part of normal climate.

Water vapor also traps heat in, by way larger margins than CO2 does.

Why is it warmer on a cloudy night than a clear night? Is that because of CO2?

Heraclitusstudent says

The next 200yrs will look like the past 200?
Unlikely. For very obvious reasons.

Agreed. Anyone trying to predict the future is most likely wrong.

Heraclitusstudent says

Onvacation says

Those that forget their history are condemned to repeat it.

What does that even mean?

Really? Google it.

Another Santayana quote that applies to the alarmists:
"Fanatacism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim."
What do the alarmists hope to gain from their alarmism?

Heraclitusstudent says

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are different from water vapor. Frequencies that previously were leaking out in space.
What happens when you fill a bucket that has a hole and you plug the hole? It fills up. In this case with heat.

Do you have a source for the "Plugged hole theory" of global warming climate change?

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

CO2 absorbs frequencies that are different from water vapor. Frequencies that previously were leaking out in space.
What happens when you fill a bucket that has a hole and you plug the hole? It fills up. In this case with heat.

Do you have a source for the "Plugged hole theory" of global warming climate change?

It might be in the empty box in the garage?

anon_dd91d says

what is the original source of that heat?

Is that some sort of trick question?

anon_dd91d says

Water vapor also traps heat in, by way larger margins than CO2 does.

I've just said it above. So what?

Onvacation says

What does that even mean?

Really? Google it.

I doubt Google knows what you mean, in the current discussion context.

Onvacation says

Anyone trying to predict the future is most likely wrong.

A possible scenario is not a prediction of the future.

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_dd91d says

Water vapor also traps heat in, by way larger margins than CO2 does.

I've just said it above. So what?

So what?

Apparently that blows up the narrative that CO2 is causing the rise in heat, right?

Thanks for finally admitting that it isn't CO2, but water vapor responsible for the heat rise.

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_dd91d says

what is the original source of that heat?

Is that some sort of trick question?

Nope, it just connects the dots to the water vapor facts, that the heat from the sun evaporates water, producing water vapor, that traps heat.

See, that was really easy.

The science lesson is complete.

anon_9ece2 says

So what?

Apparently that blows up the narrative that CO2 is causing the rise in heat, right?

No it doesn't.

Water vapor was there before, and, I'll repeat, was always a normal part of the climate. It's regulated by rain.
The only reason for it to change is precisely because more CO2 means more heat means more water vapor.

Heraclitusstudent says

anon_9ece2 says

So what?

Apparently that blows up the narrative that CO2 is causing the rise in heat, right?

No it doesn't.

Water vapor was there before, and, I'll repeat, was always a normal part of the climate.
The only reason for it to change is precisely because more CO2 means more heat means more water vapor.

So, there no chance the amount of water vapor has increased with population growth?

There's no chance that MORE water vapor comes from more irrigation, more swimming pools, more car washes, more open reservoirs, more man made lakes, more water retention pits, more mining, more industrial uses of water, more sewerage treatment plants, more asphalt and concrete allowing more water to evaporate versus drain into the ground, more fires requiring firefighting using water, etc. etc. etc., all due to HIGHER population using MORE water??

Shall I continue with more areas of ADDITIONAL evaporation causing water vapor?

Heraclitusstudent says

more CO2 means more heat

How much more? Why has the rising co2 level NOT led to a correlating increase in temperature?