patrick.net

Tim Aurora says

They also claim that cloud cover is the reason, which is a new unproven claim and has not been verified or tested.

If you’ve ever lived in a colder climate, you’ll know that cloudy winter days are MUCH warmer than clear winter days. It’s so obvious it’s not even a question. Expand your knowledge, @tim aurora

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave_of_January_1977

The Cold wave of January 1977 produced the only known trace of snow in the greater Miami area of Florida ever reported, although the city itself did not report any snow (a trace of snow was documented in Lake Worth). It occurred following the passage of a strong cold front, in combination with a high-pressure area situated over the Mississippi River Valley. As a result, cold air moved far to the south across Florida, causing both snow flurries and record low temperatures. Most notably, the weather system brought snow flurries (seen in the air, but not on the ground) as far south as Homestead on January 19. No snow had ever been reported in southeastern Florida before or since.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_of_1977

This might have been the time when the Chesapeake Bay froze over as well, but I didn't live here then.

HeadSet says

is the unburned methane a stronger green house accelerator than the combined effect of the two gasses burning that methane would produce?

Yes, if I recall correctly methane (CH4) is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Environmentally conscious Patnetters should immediately start lighting their farts.

Tim Aurora says

However we are talking about climate here not weather.

Climate is the history of weather and is changing all the time.

Tim Aurora says

We are warming up

No, we're not. The trend is cooling.

Tim Aurora says

the ice sheets have been shown to be receding.

And uncovering ancient forests and habitations.

It would be nice if the world really were getting warmer. Maybe we could grow wine grapes in northern England again.

Assertion Fallacy Religion is better than no religion.

lets ban China if we want reduction of CO2 emissions:

rd6B says

lets ban China if we want reduction of CO2 emissions:

Let's slap "CO2 green newdealish tariff" on their goods until their emissions are pared back to 1991 level.

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

Cold is hot! Newspeak from the ministry of truth.

On December 13, 2008, junk scientist Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.

Gore made the prediction to a German audience on December 13, 2008. Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/11-years-ago-today-junk-scientist-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-would-be-completely-ice-free-in-five-years/

It's still fucking cold in the bay area and Tahoe is getting blasted with snow, ok it's winter but it's a grim one. No globull warming in sight.

Booger says

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, Finland, Sweden, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

Heraclitusstudent says

Booger says

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

Antarctica (a pole) is experiencing a massive increase in ice.

mell says

Antarctica (a pole) is experiencing a massive increase in ice.

Really?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Arctic...

Heraclitusstudent says

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, Finland, Sweden, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

If that is true, it can only be good news. A longer summer season could turn these northern latitudes quite fertile! Have you seen how large cabbages get in Alaska? Larger than pumpkins! All that daylight all the time, you know.
I do know that Alaska had a record heat wave this past summer, surpassing 90°for weeks! It was very unusual, but weather is not climate. We shall have to see if it’s a fluke or a trend.

Heraclitusstudent says

mell says

Antarctica (a pole) is experiencing a massive increase in ice.

Really?

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

What are these graphs supposed to show? Antarctic sea ice has been growing steadily into 2014, and only started declining since then. 2014 we were all supposed to be out of ice already according to the usual pundits. Yes it fluctuates, def zero proof of globull warming.

Heraclitusstudent says

Booger says

Did you know that everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else?

The areas closer to the poles: Canada, Alaska, Russia, Finland, Sweden, the North Sea, Australia, etc... Are warming twice as fast as equatorial/tropical regions.
The mountains faster as well.
Exactly what you would expect from a greenhouse effect.

Is that bad?

Did you know there was a time when the arctic ocean was warm enough to swim in? Forests grew all the way to the edge of the arctic sea. The alarmists have changed their story so many times that cold truly is hot in the minds of some alarmists. They think that the cold down here is caused by the warming of the poles. Think about that logic. Record cold temperatures don't equal global warming

Where would you rather live, a tropical rainforest or an arctic tundra?

Heraclitusstudent says

Appeal to authority?

At what point is there a scientific consensus? 90%? 95%? Can there be a consensus when some scientists can make a valid case for a hypothesis that counters the "consensus" hypothesis?

What is the consensus hypothesis on global warming that you alarmists keep talking about?

I know I am talking to the wall, but...
A. It would be nice if we would keep open mind about global warming/cooling/whatever effects of human activities. Climate predictions are really, really hard. It is 100% sure that we do have impact on climate, but how much is the question.
B. "Follow the money" - both proponents and opponents of Global Warming have vested financial interests. I don't want to pay $TRILLION taxes and live in a cave to prevent CO2 emissions. I also do not want to pollute the world and emitting less CO2 is an admirable goal given that we do not really know the effects - better err on side of caution.
C. What to do? If we assume that CO2 is the problem why not build nucular power plants? Why are opponents of global warming not campaigning tirelessly for the safe and clean nucular energy, for funding to develop more efficient reactors etc? Answer is MONEY - nuclear energy will not give $$$$$ to pseudo-green government subsidized gimmicks such as solar, ethanol, etc.

Science isn't a democracy.

Once upon a time, measuring skulls, the Steady State (still an ongoing problem re: Earthy Climate), and Low-Fat, High Carb diets were part of the scientific consensus.

If you suggested a diet high in fat and protein was superior to a diet full of pasta and whole wheat bread for weightloss, you would instantly be labelled a dangerous crank.

Margarine was also pushed for 3 decades as a healthier alternative to butter by just about every nutritional organization in the world.

It is 100% sure that we do have impact on climate, but how much is the question.

The human effect on long term "climate" is likely immeasurable. But the human effect on pollution and resource depletion is real and obvious. The solution is to limit first world population to a level sustainable by nuke, recycling. hydro, land management and so on. Also to limit imports from high polluting countries. But good solutions make bad politics, so the AGW folks just push arguing with deniers and vote Dem to show you care.

nuclear energy will not give $$$$$ to pseudo-green government subsidized gimmicks such as solar, ethanol, etc.

Good point, but solar should not be on that list. Solar seems to be coming on its own to be an economically viable augmentation, without need for subsidy.

HeadSet says

The human effect on long term "climate" is likely immeasurable.

Not yet, but with increase in computing power it should be possible in future.
HeadSet says

The solution is to limit first world population to a level sustainable by nuke, recycling. hydro, land management and so on. Also to limit imports from high polluting countries.

Agreed 100%.
HeadSet says

Good point, but solar should not be on that list. Solar seems to be coming on its own to be an economically viable augmentation, without need for subsidy.

In some climates yes, but likely not in Germany and many other non-desert areas. It is not panacea, while nuclear works everywhere.

Tim Aurora says

Also, science is self correcting, in the sense one can give counter claims and correct the hypothesis

So what is the current hypothesis of the alarmists? Will the world end in 10 years if we don't stop all co2 production?

I'm not holding my breath for an answer.

Tim Aurora says

So far , all I have heard is excuses from the right wing.

I think that there are perhaps 100 or 200 people on Earth who can understand arguments for/against global warming competently. I am not one of them, and neither are any other Patnetters from what I can see.

Tim Aurora says

True that Science is not a democracy but then not every minority claim can claim to be correct.

You are missing the entire fucking point of science! It’s a METHOD, a means of understanding the world based on observation and experimentation. It’s not supposed to be a fucking RELIGION or a political ideology! It’s a PROCESS by which we discover our natural world and the way that it works!
Anyone and everyone can CLAIM to be correct, but only ONE explanation of the world can actually BE correct! And maybe that explanation has YET TO BE MADE! Maybe we don’t know the truth yet! Science means that we have to be comfortable with NOT KNOWING because that’s the first step in the process of truth discovery! If you have to know everything, you’re going to make a ton of mistakes and operate from faulty beliefs about the world.
You have to accept reality for what it actually is. That’s the way objective truth works. It’s not subject to committee debate, votes, priests, or politics. It’s either true or it’s not true.

I used my car's timing belt graph to illustrate Global Warming, and I got a grant because it looked really ugly.

climate science == political science != science

I did a science in my apartment. I try like hell to keep the pH in my fishtank >8.0. One method is to top off the evaporate with lime water. The pH level fluctuates for multiple reasons but one of which is my breathing out CO2. The pictures show the pH in my tank before I traveled for Thanksgiving and when I returned. rd6B informed me the correct term for this is in fact 'acidification' even though it never goes below 7.0 and truly becomes an acid. Pretty interesting...

Tim Aurora says

Also, science is self correcting, in the sense one can give counter claims and correct the hypothesis. So far , all I have heard is excuses from the right wing.

You are not listening. let me make it loud and clear, CO2 IS A FERTILIZER ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE ON EARTH NOT A POISON THAT WILL CAUSE THE OCEAN TO BOIL!

Tim Aurora says

water, oxygen but if their levels changed suddenly you have flood and fire.

So what do your sources say will happen if we don't change our ways? Will humanity end in 10 years like the worst predictions of the alarmists? Or are you in the camp that says a couple of degrees warmer by 2100 will cause wet bulb and flooding so bad that Manhattan and Florida will be under water? What is your best and worst case scenarios?

Onvacation says

So what is the current hypothesis of the alarmists? Will the world end in 10 years if we don't stop all co2 production?

I'm not holding my breath for an answer.

Tim Aurora says

it agrees that it does not have explanation for everything

So ya got nothing.

The alarmists' theory as I understand it is that humanity's adding co2 to the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect causing the temperature to rise.

The "deniers" point out that the co2 is continuing to increase but the temperature seems to have hit a plateau. They point out that climate change could be much better explained by natural cycles.

This is from the Museum of Natural History in LA.
Seems to indicate that climate change is not needful of humans for it to occur.

Tim Aurora says

At this point the majority (97%) of the experts agree that the climate change is happening due to human activity. That pretty much puts it as a fact

Nope, science does not work on consensus.

Between 1940-1970s, 90%+ of scientists believed cancer was largely or wholly viral. The consensus didn't make it true; science is not a democracy.



One of the greatest disproofs of a theory is when predictions are far, far off from reality down the road. There, "Climatology" has about a 100% failure rate, and it's off by a massive sum.

James Hansen:

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all

Tim Aurora says

That pretty much puts it as a fact.

Nope. Not a fact unless it can be replicated though experiment. It’s not even a reputable theory until the facts match up nicely to the projected result.

rd6B says

Tim Aurora says

So far , all I have heard is excuses from the right wing.

I think that there are perhaps 100 or 200 people on Earth who can understand arguments for/against global warming competently. I am not one of them, and neither are any other Patnetters from what I can see.

It's not that hard. You don't need to understand everything in the realm of this field, what you need to have is a basic understanding of complex models and how the addition of just one new variable can completely alter it and that the model becomes more and more imprecise the more variables you have in it. That's enough to come to the conclusion that nobody can say with any certainty what the climate will do the next 100, let alone 1000 years and more. If you're into statistics and the power of certainty you can easily derive that none of these models would pass the statistical smell test. It doesn't mean they aren't useful, but they are definitely not useful in predicting the climate over the next decades with even the slightest certainty.