patrick.net

rd6B says

1. Please explain if more CO2 in atmosphere causes positive or negative warming feedback loops. I can't answer that personally.

I can answer the obvious: it just creates a greenhouse effect. More heat on the earth than otherwise.
If you think there can be an effect that can lead more heat to lead to less heat, then by all mean, detail it in a model, quantify it, make sure it fits with thousands of observations and publish it.
Any armchair scientists on the Internet have some opinions, but I don't see anyone actually having a credible theory of how this could happen in a way that FITS OBSERVED FACTS.
Why is that? Denialism is just FUD. Why is there actually no competing scientific theory?
And as a reminder the facts we do see are warming, not cooling.

Heraclitusstudent says

mell says

That's not true. As long as the variations are small then yes, there must be another source for significant changes. But if we approach any local minimum or even maunder minimum, the warming we have seen is meaningless, a blip on the radar and no match for the upcoming ice age.

There is no maunder minimum, or larger variations happening now.
We also know for a fact for example that polar regions that DO NOT SEE THE SUN FOR 6 MONTHS A YEAR are the places that see the most warming. This is totally consistent with greenhouse effect and totally INCONSISTENT with a variation in sun intensity.

So I'll repeat again:
We know for an absolute fact that whatever tiny variations in sun intensity we observe cannot explain the warning observed NOW.

And I'm saying the warming we have seen will be eclipsed 1000-fold by any local or maunder minimum. I'm not denying greenhouse gases can contribute to warming, of course which gases would those be, maybe not CO2 primarily as there are many, but the effect so far has not been dramatic at all. Do you think it's time for alarmism and carbon taxes going bonkers based on a relatively small warming of global temperatures over the past decades?

Heraclitusstudent says

how this could happen in a way that FITS OBSERVED FACTS.

The warming observed currently does not fit the models, so proponents of AGW are at best little less wrong as opponents.. So, why should I believe the alarmists who get funded for being alarmists?
BTW I am not denying that humans do warm the climate. What I do not know is if their influence is 1% or 99%, and since models suck (we know this for a fact, as the predictions of even 10 yrs ago have not panned out), I am inclined to not believe them.

Heraclitusstudent says

detail it in a model, quantify it, and publish it.

Not my field, and additionally since it is not my field I do not know where previous models went wrong. I just know they are wrong.

So far 2019 seems to be trending towards the 2nd or 3rd warmest year according to the pundits (quick search on latest updates from a few months ago). We shall see where it lands, I think it will be 3rd warmest according to their measurements. Certainly no record this year.

mell says

Heraclitusstudent says

theoakman says

Crop yields continue to increase globally, surpassing what is needed to feed the world. Agricultural technology matters more than climate.

Let's say we continue to burn C without paying attention to climate change. The temp goes up +2.. +3... +5.... +10 Celcius. Let's continue to +15?
At what point does the "it's good for us" or "it doesn't matter" become utter obvious BS?

Definitely a valid question, but we're def not there yet IMO and it looks like warming has slowed as we haven't made any new records in the last 2 years and 2019 is likely going to end even cooler again.

Hard to say...but what we do know is the current narrative of food losses is complete nonsense. At this point given the current trends ..this could possibly be an issue 1000 years down the road

I would be interested in the people on this thread staying what science courses they've taken.

Heraclitusstudent says

Why is there actually no competing scientific theory?

There are. Some climate scientists predict the coming solar minimum will cause the planet to cool.
Heraclitusstudent says

And as a reminder the facts we do see are warming, not cooling.

From NASA
Five Warmest Years (Anomalies)
1st. 2016(+0.45°C), 2nd. 2015(+0.42°C), 3rd. 2017(+0.38°C), 4th. 2018(+0.31°C), 5th. 2014(+0.27°C)

The warmest year was 2016. The second warmest year was 2015. Then 2017at 3rd. 2018 was the 4th warmest year EVER! The entire warming since 1880 was 0.8 degrees. The cooling since 2016 is 0.2 degrees, one quarter of the total warming Greta and the rest of the alarmists are concerned about.

The coming years will determine if the trend continues to be toward cooling.

Tim Aurora says

I think now you are getting into " if you are not perfect , you are not right" mode. All the models explained loss of Artic ice and yes we are losing ice

extent is wrong, and not just wrong - very, very wrong. So...we were supposed to have global cooling in 70's; in 90's we had 20 years before temperature goes out of whack; in 00's ice was supposed to melt completely in 10 years. Why would I believe this? Fool me once, and so on.

Onvacation says

There are. Some climate scientists predict the coming solar minimum will cause the planet to cool.

What minimum? There is an 11yrs cycle in the sun that is totally irrelevant as far as climate is concerned.
Otherwise what minimum do we observe 1 now? Or when is it predicted to be observed? On what time scale?

This is a ridiculous answer to a simple question: Why don't denialists have an other theories they all agree to defend?
Why don't we have theories verifying thousands of observations that predict completely different outcomes? 1 foot of extra water in 2100 is qualitatively and on order of magnitude the same result as 3 feet of extra water. Why aren't there theories with radically different results?

Onvacation says

The warmest year was 2016. The second warmest year was 2015. Then 2017at 3rd. 2018 was the 4th warmest year EVER!

You have to be very disingenuous to not notice that 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 are essentially an instant in the history of climate.
So yeah, the current instant is the warmest.

Heraclitusstudent says

So yeah, the current instant is the warmest.

Do you believe in the Roman warming? The little ice age was colder than now. The medieval warming was hotter than now. Do you deny history?

Onvacation says

Do you believe in the Roman warming? The little ice age was colder than now. The medieval warming was hotter than now.

So what? I can't think of anything more irrelevant.

Heraclitusstudent says

So what? I can't think of anything more irrelevant.

Just disputing your claim that Heraclitusstudent says

the current instant is the warmest.

Many in the alarmist religion believe in a rewrite of history where the temperature never fluctuated until evil carbon spewing capitalist enterprises caused the co2 and temperature to spike like a hockey stick.

Onvacation says

Just disputing your claim that Heraclitusstudent says

the current instant is the warmest.

I was just quoting you: "The temp peaked in 2016".

Onvacation says

Many in the alarmist religion believe in a rewrite of history where the temperature never fluctuated until evil carbon spewing capitalist enterprises caused the co2 and temperature to spike like a hockey stick.

The hockey stick is just beginning.

Heraclitusstudent says

Onvacation says

Just disputing your claim that Heraclitusstudent says

the current instant is the warmest.

I was just quoting you: "The temp peaked in 2016".

But was warmer during the medieval warming and warmer still during the Roman warming period. Agreed?

Heraclitusstudent says

The hockey stick is just beginning.

When did it start?

Google it.

"Global warming skeptics were heavily critical of the “hockey stick” graph, especially in the wake of McKitrick’s and McIntyre’s 2003 study. Their study found serious flaws in the proxy data Mann relied upon to estimate temperatures going back hundreds of years.

The Canadians’ 2003 study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century."

Why worry about global warming. I mean all the scientists and their predictive models of the 70's proved that acid rain was going to completely destroy the world's forests if pollution continued at the levels present during the 70's. Well now with China and India polluting well beyond those levels … I mean in a few millennium the acid rain will have some effect...uhhhh right. This was supposed to be of a more immediate effect than global warming alarmists theories of today. Any disagreement with these scientists of the 70's during their reign of misinformation would have had you labeled as a denier and ostracized as a tool of the oil companies.

When the ice sheets that connected Asia with North America melted, now that was global warming. This maybe not so much.

C new science finds human activity has virtually zero impact on global temperatures

Saying "new" science implies that old science supported AGW. True science has never supported AGW.

Onvacation says

When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th century that exceeds the warmth of the 20th century."

That period was responsible for drying out the southwest areas of Nevada and Utah and New Mexico where a flourishing Indian civilization was located.

Shaman says

That period was responsible for drying out the southwest areas of Nevada and Utah and New Mexico where a flourishing Indian civilization was located.

And the ice age had mammoths, giant sloths, lions, stag-mooses, shrub-oxes, giant armadillos, and 14 species of pronghorns.
The ice age was great for nature.

We'd still be hunting them too if it weren't for the blessed warming.

Does Greta have to deploy back to Scandinavia now to run away from roving bands of inbred Muslim rapists? No wonder she shilled on the world stage.

Heraclitusstudent says

The ice age was great for nature

Tell that to the flash frozen mammoths.

Heraclitusstudent says

The ice age was great for nature.

Assertion projection much?

2007 NASA: Arctic Ice Free by 2013.

www.youtube.com/embed/iMq0C19sqm8

I swear, I don't wish this on that dorky girl, but wouldn't the funniest thing be for her to be groped by a Muslim Gang on a security camera that gets leaked to the Public before Swedish Authorities can conceal it?

Onvacation says

Heraclitusstudent says

The ice age was great for nature

Tell that to the flash frozen mammoths.

Flash frozen mammoth 🤤
Toss that sucker in the flash fryer!

Ok you want to decrease the average temperature of the planet fast?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Sea

Dig a channel through some sand bars to the Mediterranean Sea, let the ocean water flood the low lying parts of the Sahara desert, bringing humidity and lowering temperatures in the region which should promote rainfall and (with desalination plants) provide for agricultural development of the region. Right now it’s lifeless empty desert where it never fucking rains. You could turn that into an oasis with this one little move.
It would cut down on sand storms in the area, which stretch far west over the Atlantic even influencing rainfall in Brazil. The incredibly hot temperatures of the Sahara also provide the seeds of hurricanes which annually batter the East cost of the USA and the Caribbean. Reducing these temps would reduce the power of hurricanes, and reduce their number. It would reduce global temperature averages as well through cloud formation and precipitation, as well as just reflection off the surface of the new inland sea.

If you’re serious about global warming, this is a serious first step.

NoCoupForYou says

I swear, I don't wish this on that dorky girl, but wouldn't the funniest thing be for her to be groped by a Muslim Gang on a security camera that gets leaked to the Public before Swedish Authorities can conceal it?

She should be grateful. If it weren't for Global Warming, they would be groping her with cold fingers.

The 400 threads on reddit were a little rough on this topic but the 800 threads on Twitter gave a much smoother transitional argument...
Misc says

When the ice sheets that connected Asia with North America melted, now that was global warming.

Shaman says

If you’re serious about global warming, this is a serious first step.

Wait, a functional, measureable theory? How dare you!

Shaman says

If you’re serious about global warming, this is a serious first step.

Or telling Cat Ladies Passionate about Global Warming that buying MORE stuff on Amazon means more global warming....consume less = less global warming.

Do not use AC in summer, do not heat house to more than 50F in winter etc.

rd6B says

Cat Ladies Passionate about Global Warming

Now there's a name for a band!

Think about all that new water front Real Estate! Someone should tell Trump to buy the Sahara!

CBOEtrader says

Shaman says

If you’re serious about global warming, this is a serious first step.

Wait, a functional, measureable theory? How dare you!

That's the thing. In nearly all scifi movies mankind has invented one or more technologies to deal with such potential issues but in reality the politicians aren't looking for solutions because then they couldn't subjugate their people to globull warming bs carbon tax measures and that would loosen their chokehold on what should be free people.