patrick.net

TwoScoopsPlissken says

CO2 would have to be 5% of the atmosphere before harmful effects were felt by humans.

source?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

They don't want to show the Permian, Triassic, Devonian etc. Eras when estimated CO2 was running north of 1000ppm (almost 4000ppm in some eras!!!) but life was absolutely abundant.

And how many humans were on the planet then?

Despite your strawman argument, the point isn't that all humans will die. Of course not. But many will. And the costs could be astronomical.

Onvacation says

But the warming and sea rise is NOT exponential as the alarmists predicted.

It's not changing fast enough for you, therefore it's wrong ? They predicted a couple feet sea level increase over the course of a century. Very slow exponential growth isn't going to be trackable in the short run. It's going to be smaller than the short term variations. During the period 1970 - 2016 people got something like an 8% return on stock investments. This is exponential because you're always getting 8% on previous gains as well as your original investment. That doesn't mean there can't be a month that the stock market goes down, or even a year or two. Those decreases don't mean that stock market values don't grow exponentially.

Onvacation says

Now, can you answer how the worldwide average temp increase of 4/100 of one degree between 2016 and 2017 can even be measured?

So really what your argument is here is that you can find a short term period where the increase was small. You're arguments are beyond weak.

They took reading at hundreds (or thousands) of locations and calculated the average increase. So it's a small number ? That's because it's a small period of time. The change isn't overnight. If it were, the apocolypse would be behind us (perhaps what you wish to be true ? Just guessing).

This chart is from an alarmist website, trying to make a connection between extinctions and CO2.

Notice of course, what the average CO2 levels are. For example, from 200mya to about 50mya it averaged well over 1000ppm.

http://www.johnenglander.net/co2-levels-and-mass-extinction-events/

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Are we comparing real data to proxies?

Look at the real measurements: CO2 concentrations, temp increase, sea ice extents, oceans heat contents, radiations incoming and out going from sky, etc, etc... The picture is clear.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

CO2 would have to be 5% of the atmosphere before harmful effects were felt by humans.

You mean harmful effects because of breathing it? No one is talking about that.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

As always, we should be talking about population control and ban private vehicles.

Yeah well but birth rates are collapsing over the planet (most increase of population that are planned are from people living older), and electric vehicles are on their way to become soon cheaper than gas ones.
So?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Let's remember the "average Global" temperature has risen by about 1F in an entire century. There is no static Earth. We do not have direct measurements prior to 1900, and frankly the measuring tools were far more primitive and imprecise in the 19th Century than today. A dollar store thermometer is more accurate today than a handcrafted one costing a princely sum that some Wealthy Royal Society Lord would have used.

If we were to continue burning fuel as we are now, the real fun would start after 2100: we wouldn't be talking of 1 or 2C. The CO2 accumulated would be such that temperatures would rise maybe 1C per decade. Oceans would rise by several meters. Parts of the land would inhabitable and ravaged by deadly heat waves on a regular basis, other parts lost to sea. Hundreds of millions of "poor people" might move north to humm the US, Europe, etc... If Europe can't take a million Syrians, what is the political impact of 200 or 300 millions Africans or Indians? What is the stability of our civilization under such circumstances?

I'm sorry I don't find what happened millions of years ago very re-assuring.

Sniper says

Joey, firstly, florists regularly inject CO2 into the greenhouses at the level of 1200 - 1600ppm to spur growth of the plants. Does that sound harmful to yo-u?

Hahaha ! Good one.

Yeah, you don't see the sunlight inside the greenehouse getting ovelrly magnified in a dangerous way do ya. WELL DO YA !?

Sniper says

Second, CO2 levels can rise in the 1200- 2000 ppm levels in a closed meeting room? How many people do yo-u know have died during meetings?

You guys are funny. I'll give you that.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

There may not be enough fossil fuel reserves to get to 5% CO2

Really?
I thought oxygen on earth comes from CO2, so that burning all carbon literally means running out of oxygen. There are giant reserves of methane hydrate in the ocean floor.

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

- Why and how are most scientists in 200 countries and over several decades agreeing to lie about this particular subject?

Mostly politicians lie. Although 97% of scientists that believe in CAGW do believe that mans co2 is making earth warmer.

Wrong. Scientists are not politicians.
You didn't answer the question: why and how 97% of scientists agree to lie about this, and maintain this lie for decades?
Why?????
How??? They have secret meetings coordinated by Illuminati where they are sworn to always lie about this? And killed if they try to escape?

HappyGilmore says

Well, the entire thesis is that man-made CO2 is affecting global ecosystem. The amount of CO2 has risen sharply over the last century so it makes sense to look at this time period.

Did your high school teacher tell you that?

First, CO2 started rising sharply in late 1940s (after WW2) -- not in 1850s, and not in 1970s. There is simply no correlation between temp and CO2. The data adjusters have shot themselves in the foot by flattening the warming curve over the entire 20th century, and leaving CO2 alone.

Second, that thesis was postulated a hundred years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect) and discarded around 1960s, when all the human released CO2 did not stop the cooling in the 1970 (that cooling was adjusted away by climate "scientists" adjustment team five years ago)

anon_1bd09 says

First, CO2 started rising sharply in late 1940s (after WW2) -- not in 1850s, and not in 1970s

So, looking at the last century makes sense. Like I said.

marcus says

Sniper says

Second, CO2 levels can rise in the 1200- 2000 ppm levels in a closed meeting room? How many people do yo-u know have died during meetings?

You guys are funny. I'll give you that.

This is the kind of argument we get from denialists: It sinks under its own silliness. It stupidly equates chemical poisoning with atmosphere greenhouse effect. It is information free: just mud thrown around by a monkey that will repeat the same idiocy the next day just to disrupt any trace of intelligent exchange, and under the cover of anonymity so pay no price for it.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why?????

I think it's that because those scientists that spend a decade or more developing their knowledge base and expertise don't really know so much.

I'll take a high school dropout redneck's opinion that he generates off the top of his head over the opinion of one of those ivory tower fancy pants scientists any day. All opinions are equally valid.

Trump will confirm this. We're officially an Idiocracy.

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

What other theory do you have that fully explains all observations including melting ice, increasing temps, the distribution of this increase over the planet, etc....?

The natural variation in earths orbit and the suns output.

No: that wouldn't explain why the poles are warming faster than tropics, the nights are warming faster than days, and winters faster than summers. We also measure directly the output of the sun and found no increase, so it can't be the sun.
Natural variations do not happen without without cause. What is the cause?

HappyGilmore says

The amount of CO2 has risen sharply over the last century so it makes sense to look at this time period.

But the temperature and sea level has NOT risen sharply. How do you account for the discrepancy?

marcus says

I'll take a high school dropout redneck's opinion that he generates off the top of his head over the opinion of one of those ivory tower fancy pants scientists any day. All opinions are equally valid.

Trump will confirm this. We're officially an Idiocracy.

And these guys cash in on it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs

marcus says

Onvacation says

Now, can you answer how the worldwide average temp increase of 4/100 of one degree between 2016 and 2017 can even be measured?

So really what your argument is here is that you can find a short term period where the increase was small. You're arguments are beyond weak.

It's not an argument it is a question: How can such a small amount, 4/100 of one degree, be measured over the entire globe? Most thermometers are not accurate to 1/10 of one degree much less 1/100th.
Can anyone answer how they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Anyone?

There has been cooling due to SOx emissions at various times. Sometimes, this has been due to volcanic eruptions. Other times it was cumulative burning of fossil fuels without removal of sulfur (in refineries and with scrubbers). When we put sulfur emission legislation in place, and reduced acid rain, we also removed the global cooling effect that was masking the warming due to CO2. This caused an increase in observed temperatures. Currently, China is emitting a bunch of SOx. When they clean up their act, it will unmask more warming.
Scientist that correct for the impact of SOx are doing what is standard practice in science. They are separating the impact of multiple variables to isolate the effect of each variable. This is a standard component of any statistical or modeling analysis. The deniers don't understand how science works, so they call this cheating, lying, or faking the data.

marcus says

They took reading at hundreds (or thousands) of locations and calculated the average increase.

Down to hundredths of a degree over the whole world. Do you REALLY believe that?

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah well but birth rates are collapsing over the planet (most increase of population that are planned are from people living older), and electric vehicles are on their way to become soon cheaper than gas ones.

Were saved! Thank goodness for technology!

Onvacation says

Down to hundredths of a degree over the whole world. Do you REALLY believe that?

The hundredths come from averaging.

Heraclitusstudent says

the real fun would start after 2100: we wouldn't be talking of 1 or 2C. The CO2 accumulated would be such that temperatures would rise maybe 1C per decade.

Now you are getting smart. Put those predictions so far out they could never be checked.

And before you ask, yes I care about my children and grandchildren. I just think they will have more serious problems than CAGW.

Onvacation says

It's not an argument it is a question: How can such a small amount, 4/100 of one degree, be measured over the entire globe? Most thermometers are not accurate to 1/10 of one degree much less 1/100th.
Can anyone answer how they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Anyone?

You know of course that this is an average of thousands of measurements, and average of even round numbers can lead to fractional numbers?

And yes temps can be measured in fractions of degrees, but really: whether or not these digits are significant or not is itself totally irrelevant for this debate.

Onvacation says

And before you ask, yes I care about my children and grandchildren. I just think they will have more serious problems than CAGW.

... So let's screw them even more...

Heraclitusstudent says

I thought oxygen on earth comes from CO2

No. Oxygen is an element. The oxygen produced from photosynthesis comes from water. The co2 is converted into sugars (carbohydrates).

Heraclitusstudent says

burning all carbon literally means running out of oxygen

Do you really believe that?

HappyGilmore says

Try putting a small amount of cyanide in your food. Or a small amount of phosgene in the air you breathe.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is the kind of argument we get from denialists: It sinks under its own silliness. It stupidly equates chemical poisoning with atmosphere greenhouse effect. It is information free: just mud thrown around by a monkey that will repeat the same idiocy the next day just to disrupt any trace of intelligent exchange, and under the cover of anonymity so pay no price for it.

Yep

Onvacation says

HappyGilmore says

Try putting a small amount of cyanide in your food. Or a small amount of phosgene in the air you breathe.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is the kind of argument we get from denialists: It sinks under its own silliness. It stupidly equates chemical poisoning with atmosphere greenhouse effect. It is information free: just mud thrown around by a monkey that will repeat the same idiocy the next day just to disrupt any trace of intelligent exchange, and under the cover of anonymity so pay no price for it.

Yep

Nope--I wasn't equating chemical poisoning with atmospheric greenhouse effect.

I was showing you that small variables can have large effects. The fact that you cannot see nuance or subtlety is your defect, not mine.

Heraclitusstudent says

Natural variations do not happen without without cause. What is the cause?

Orbit, solar output, cloud cover, disingenuous scientists manipulating historical evidence to match their theory.

Heraclitusstudent says

Look at the real measurements: CO2 concentrations, temp increase, sea ice extents, oceans heat contents, radiations incoming and out going from sky, etc, etc... The picture is clear.

Temperature increase doesn't tell me much, for instance, unless i have the same fine grain data with non-proxy real measurements.

For example, did the temperature rise 1C between 1,100,100 ya and 1,100,200ya?

Tree Ring measurements from Northern Latitudes are a major source of historical data on temperature changes, especially more recent ones, the past 1000 years or so.

I quote a source against my interest, which is long on talk but short on answers.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm
It also dodges the real problem: Since most of the landmass (and trees, by far) are in Northern latitudes, then tree ring proxies 'diverging' (ie not matching actual physical temperature measurements) would not only give incorrect temperatures, but would greatly effect the "Global Average" and esp. for land temps given the distribution of land skewed to the Northern Hemisphere.

Their excuse is very poor and solipsistic:
"The proxy we know is off because they were taken in a time we could directly measure the temperature is divergent with proxies from the time before we could verify it with direct temperature readings, therefore whatever happened after 1960 must also be something anthropogenic". Horrible reasoning.

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: The Proxy isn't perfect and has a margin of error, why we don't know, but it does.

Onvacation says

Can anyone answer how they measure such a small increase over the entire globe? Anyone?

really ? you're trolling. It's probably that each location takes readings june 6 2015 versus june 6 2017, and june 7th 2015 versus june 7th 2016 and so on. You do that for every day of the year, and you average the change. Then you take that (average) number and average it with the averages from all the hundreds of other locations across the planet.

If the resulting number weren't very very small, we would really be in trouble.

marcus says

It's probably that location takes readings june 6 2015 versus june 6 2017, and june 7th 2015 versus june 7th 2016 and so on.

At what time of day? Given a normal variation of 12 degrees over the course of one day, would they take a measurement sample every second to be more accurate? If they are more accurate in this way, how could you possibly trust measurements from more than 50 years ago when this wasn't possible?

I took multiple environmental economics courses in college. The cap and trade concepts using weather derivatives are why I went into the trading business (although that stuff never got started).

Back in 1999 we were reading Al Gore's ridiculous predictions.

It is completely rational to think critically about any model or prediction in this field. Any scientist who tells you they know exactly what will happen or claim to have precise temperature data is lying to you.

It is also perfectly rational to suggest we need to cut back carbon emissions.

Those two sentiments are far from mutually exclusive.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Occam's Razor suggests a simpler explanation: The Proxy isn't perfect and has a margin of error, why we don't know, but it does.

But the important questions is--is there any reason to think this error would be biased towards warming?

CBOEtrader says

Any scientist who tells you they know exactly what will happen or claim to have precise temperature data is lying to you.

And of course no scientist does. They also don't claim to have precise temperate data. But when you take averages of averages over many readings over many locations, the errors in precision should offset each other, unless the people doing the measurement are biassed. But that doesn't even make sense because the same degree of bias would have been in the tens of thousands of 2015 readings as were in the 2016 reading. These people are obviously not fudging all those individual readings anyway. On any given day the temperature is whatever it is. It may be off by 20 degrees in either direction from the temperature the same day the previous year.

HappyGilmore says

The hundredths come from averaging.

noaa says their temp measurements are plus or minus 8/100 of a degree.
So the averages come out lower than the precision of the devices? How can this be?

Heraclitusstudent says

And yes temps can be measured in fractions of degrees, but really: whether or not these digits are significant or not is itself totally irrelevant for this debate.

Exactly. Does anybody disagree with this? Why?

Onvacation says

So the averages come out lower than the precision of the devices? How can this be?

Again intentional trolling. You can't possibly be serious.

If you are, try this: 200 readings are up by 5 degrees and 220 readings are down by 6 degrees.

What's the average change ?

Heraclitusstudent says

whether or not these digits are significant or not is itself totally irrelevant for this debate.

Not really. With the margin of error 2016 may NOT have been the hottest year EVER.

Statistically, with measurement error, there has been very little, if any, warming.

Onvacation is trolling. Just intentionally seeing how much time he can make you waste. And laughing at you for being stupid enough to answer him.

Either that, or there is another possibility.

CBOEtrader says

It is completely rational to think critically about any model or prediction in this field. Any scientist who tells you they know exactly what will happen or claim to have precise temperature data is lying to you.

It is also perfectly rational to suggest we need to cut back carbon emissions.

Those two sentiments are far from mutually exclusive.

Another voice of reason.

Just because I don't believe in co2 caused CAGW does not mean I think we should continue to pollute.

Heraclitusstudent says

Yeah well but birth rates are collapsing over the planet (most increase of population that are planned are from people living older), and electric vehicles are on their way to become soon cheaper than gas ones.

Electric Vehicles use Rare Earth Metals which are incredibly polluting to refine. To switch to electric, we'd have to drastically increase electric generation - while moving to renewables that are today fractional to fossil fuels.

The birth rate is slowly declining globally. Now we need to go into reverse with child maximum with a mixture of carrots (free education, cash grants) and sticks (higher taxes, points off on civil service exams, etc.)

Heraclitusstudent says

If we were to continue burning fuel as we are now, the real fun would start after 2100: we wouldn't be talking of 1 or 2C. The CO2 accumulated would be such that temperatures would rise maybe 1C per decade. Oceans would rise by several meters. Parts of the land would inhabitable and ravaged by deadly heat waves on a regular basis, other parts lost to sea. Hundreds of millions of "poor people" might move north to humm the US, Europe, etc... If Europe can't take a million Syrians, what is the political impact of 200 or 300 millions Africans or Indians? What is the stability of our civilization under such circumstances?

Predictive models have a crappy track record. And the more complex, the further from reality they end up being.

There's no reason to think we'll have exponential increases in CO2 or Temperature.

As for moving north, build the Wall and have the Italians sink a few boats with a 76mm gun.

marcus says

It's not changing fast enough for you, therefore it's wrong ?

It is not behaving as predicted, therefore, the theory is wrong. This is not just basics of science, this is the definition of empirical method. You make a theory, you think of what follows from that theory, you make experiment/observation, and if the results of the theory/observation are not what you expect, the theory is wrong. End of story.

marcus says

They predicted a couple feet sea level increase over the course of a century. Very slow exponential growth isn't going to be trackable in the short run.

Everything that climate "scientists" have predicted has turned out to be false -- so now you stick to predictions that "isn't going to be trackable in the short run". That's classical pseudoscience.

They took reading at hundreds (or thousands) of locations and calculated the average increase. So it's a small number ? That's because it's a small period of time. The change isn't overnight.

Tamerlane was looking for someone to teach his donkey to talk. Nobody wanted the job. Finally the wise men of the dunes - Hodja Nasreddin took the position and promised to teach the donkey to talk in 10 years time.
- Are you crazy? his friends asked him.
- Not really, Hodja answered, the money is good the job is not hard and in 10 years a lot might happen: I might die, or Tamerlane might die or surely enough this old donkey might die.