The Climate Change People are Lying to Us

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

What doesn't seem clear to you is what you're responding to.

What he said was:

So you can have warming, even human caused warming but that is not the same thing as knowing how much warming or what possible danger it might insinuate or when that scary danger you postulate might occur.

You don't know any of that. None of the links you posted or the links from the links show it. Nice try though.

Some stuff one doesn't need links for.  One just knows. 

It doesn't matter whether of not we know how many degrees warmer the world will be in 2050, or when the Himalayan glaciers are finally going to disappear, or when various species will be done existing.  It's intuitive that a planet of finite size with finite resources cannot sustain an ever increasing population without that population having a detrimental effect.  You don't need links for that.

You can get stuff from links.  I'm sure NASA and the IPCC and the NOAA have got lots.  Of course, if one is determined not to believe them, what good are they? 

Better just to go with the obvious. 

[Infidel Dog]

No point in arguing with your magic instincts then.

Hey...can you give me some good numbers for the 649.

However...

There's this thing called climate sensitivity. It's the core of the real argument.

You can show by the scientific method that a gas like CO2 causes some warming in an enclosed environment.

I believe the estimate is 1 degree celsius per doubling of CO2.

The problem with that is these catastrophes warmists are hoping for don't happen at that sensitivity.

So you have to postulate feedbacks. Positive feedbacks increase the warming. Negative feedbacks cool things down. 

In general in a natural system there are more negative feedbacks than positive.

The IPCC is changing its mind about what climate sensitivity might be from report to report. Not sure but I think the last guess was about 2 degrees to 4.5. per doubling. Right around there anyway. Whatever it is It's just a guess. I think climate scientist Richard Lindzen goes the other way and guesses around 1 to 0.5.

Maybe I should shoot all those scientists off an email though and explain to them they can stop wondering. There's a user at a message board I belong to and he says he knows based on the superior principle of 'he know cause he knows.' 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

No point in arguing with your magic instincts then.

Hey...can you give me some good numbers for the 649.

However...

There's this thing called climate sensitivity. It's the core of the real argument.

You can show by the scientific method that a gas like CO2 causes some warming in an enclosed environment.

I believe the estimate is 1 degree celsius per doubling of CO2.

The problem with that is these catastrophes warmists are hoping for don't happen at that sensitivity.

So you have to postulate feedbacks. Positive feedbacks increase the warming. Negative feedbacks cool things down. 

In general in a natural system there are more negative feedbacks than positive.

The IPCC is changing its mind about what climate sensitivity might be from report to report. Not sure but I think the last guess was about 2 degrees to 4.5. per doubling. Right around there anyway. Whatever it is It's just a guess. I think climate scientist Richard Lindzen goes the other way and guesses around 1 to 0.5.

Maybe I should shoot all those scientists off an email though and explain to them they can stop wondering. There's a user at a message board I belong to and he says he knows base on the principle of 'he know cause he knows.' 

 

Absolutely.  Tell them what you know.  Save us from all those excruciatingly useless conferences.

[Infidel Dog]

Me? I don't know what the true climate sensitivity number is in a chaotic real world environment. I can't even find a real consensus of scientists claiming they know with any certainty.

You, however said this:

Quote

Some stuff one doesn't need links for.  One just knows.

So tell us then, O great swami, what is the true climate sensitivity number per doubling of CO2 in a real world environment?

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Me? I don't know what the true climate sensitivity number is in a chaotic real world environment. I can't even find a real consensus of scientists claiming they know with any certainty.

You, however said this:

So tell us then, O great swami, what is the true climate sensitivity number per doubling of CO2 in a real world environment?

Why would you change the subject like that?  If you think I'm wrong, why attempt a misdirection?

You do think I'm wrong?

[Infidel Dog]

What are you talking about.

I was talking how the science doesn't know what's coming. They have guesses. You told us it didn't matter what the science knows or doesn't know about what's coming because you just knew. Apparently you know because you know. 

I mocked that as ridiculous. Wanna know why? Because it is. And noticing it is dead on the subject of your claim.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Michael Hardner]

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

 

There is a recent assessment of temperature models posted by NASA

Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

What are you talking about.

I was talking how the science doesn't know what's coming. They have guesses. You told us it didn't matter what the science knows or doesn't know about what's coming because you just knew. Apparently you know because you know. 

I mocked that as ridiculous. Wanna know why? Because it is. And noticing it is dead on the subject of your claim.

Sure.  It's raining.  I guess I'm going to get wet if I go outside.  I won't know for sure until I actually do.  I didn't say I knew specifics.  In fact, I went out of my way to state I didn't know specifics. I have gone even further out of my way on this thread and others to state that specifics aren't important. 

I stand by my claim.  It's not my fault some vast majority of climate scientists and sane people agree with me.  I don't need them.

Edited July 9, 2020 by bcsapper

[Iceni warrior]

9 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

What are you talking about.

I was talking how the science doesn't know what's coming. They have guesses. You told us it didn't matter what the science knows or doesn't know about what's coming because you just knew. Apparently you know because you know. 

I mocked that as ridiculous. Wanna know why? Because it is. And noticing it is dead on the subject of your claim.

Your argument seems to be that we can't accurately predict the future and therefore we shouldn't do anything to mitigate rising temperatures.

That's a great cop out. 

Not very intellectually honest but a great cop out.

 

 

 

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

 

There is a recent assessment of temperature models posted by NASA

Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth’s future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

 It's not my fault some vast majority of climate scientists and sane people agree with me.  I don't need them.

And of course, because you use the word "study" there can be no argument. Except there is:

"

Paper praising models’ predictions proves they greatly exaggerate

Guest Blogger / January 12, 2020

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,

A recent paper by Hausfather et al. purports to demonstrate that models “are accurately projecting global warming”. In reality, and stripped of the now-routine hype and editorializing with which the paper is riddled, the results plainly demonstrate precisely the opposite – that models have exaggerated global warming – and continue to do so.

Here is the “plain-language summary” of Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections, by Hausfather et al. (2019):"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/12/paper-praising-models-predictions-proves-they-greatly-exaggerate/

[Infidel Dog]

8 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Your argument seems to be that we can't accurately predict the future and therefore we shouldn't do anything to mitigate rising temperatures.

That's a great cop out. 

Not very intellectually honest but a great cop out.

 

 

 

No. I've been pretty crystal clear what my argument is.

We can't accurately predict the future. If we had to though I'd be more scared of a totalitarian world government using the climate scare to take over. As to the scare itself we'd be better off relying on adaptation as insurance. Adaptation has been successful dealing with climate change of the past. These new mitigation policies (carbon tax, ineffective energy alternatives, additional government control) only appear to be creating new problems.

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It's not my fault some vast majority of climate scientists and sane people agree with me. 

The real climate consensus only says the global climate has warmed some since the end of the little ice age. Greenhouse gases have some effect. Humans in general can have some effect on climate. 

Any consensus on a proposed coming catastrophe or how to deal with it comes from politically motivated administrators, not boots on the ground scientists.

Oh and before you start preaching again how you just know end-times is coming because there's a "population bomb" ready to ignite you might want to check how Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren did with that prediction the last time it was popular.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

The real climate consensus only says the global climate has warmed some since the end of the little ice age. Greenhouse gases have some effect. Humans in general can have some effect on climate. 

Any consensus on a proposed coming catastrophe or how to deal with it comes from politically motivated administrators, not boots on the ground scientists.

Oh and before you start preaching again how you just know end-times is coming because there's a "population bomb" ready to ignite you might want to check how Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren did with that prediction the last time it was popular.

End times?  What end times? I predict a slow but inexorable trend towards misery, for the majority of the population.  I predict soil desertification and ocean acidification will continue, and various animal and plant species will disappear faster than they needed to.  I predict the number of people who want what you have will grow, and the methods they are prepared to use to get it will become more extreme.  I predict you will continue to deny the obvious, because it takes all sorts to make up a species.

I definitely don't think it will end.

[Infidel Dog]

Really? That's a pretty sad world you believe in. I'm sorry to hear that.

None of it is obvious though. 

Look on the bright side. Imagine how much happier you'll be when you're wrong.

Or wait, are you planning to be around when all this happens or is it more just something you're wishing on some future generation?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Really? That's a pretty sad world you believe in. I'm sorry to hear that.

None of it is obvious though. 

Look on the bright side. Imagine how much happier you'll be when you're wrong.

Or wait, are you planning to be around when all this happens or is it more just something you're wishing on some future generation?

Yeah, that is a big plus.  If I'm wrong, it won't piss me off. 

[eyeball]

On 7/8/2020 at 9:14 PM, Infidel Dog said:

Maybe I should shoot all those scientists off an email though and explain to them they can stop wondering. There's a user at a message board I belong to and he says he knows based on the superior principle of 'he know cause he knows.' 

You really should, if you're THE ONE with the solution to the climate dilemma you'll be awarded the Nobel Prize, millions of dollars and probably find yourself buried under more panties than Steven Tyler.

[Infidel Dog]

All I do is listen to the voices of what seems to be the more reasonable argument - like Lindzen and Lomberg.

If you're giving out Nobel Prizes maybe you'd want to start there. There are a couple of Canadians named McIntyre and Mckitrick who deserve at least an Order of Canada.

I wouldn't mind some of the trillions the Powers That Be have been wasting on the climate catastrophe scam though.

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Cannucklehead]

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/climate-change-colorado-wildfires-record-breaking/

 

Colorado's record-breaking wildfires show "climate change is here and now"

 

More and more evidence is coming out everyday.

 

In a letter the editor published in the journal Global Change Biology, two of the world's foremost experts on wildfires conclude that the "[r]ecord-setting climate enabled the extraordinary 2020 fire season in the western United States." 

[OftenWrong]

They like to excuse themselves from the real fact it is decades of bad forestry "management", for lack of better word, that is a major factor.

 

[Infidel Dog]

Thank you CBS for informing us about "the biggest wildlife in Colorado history" though.

[oops]

Is climate change real? Of course it is, the climate is always changing. It was changing long before mankind was around. Odd as it might sound a warm climate is actually better for mankind.

Beginning 195,000 years ago,the global climate entered a period of cold and dry conditions that lasted for 70,000 years, a phase called Marine Isotope Stage 6. In interior Africa, this shift triggered drought conditions so severe that much of the continent would have become uninhabitable. Genetic studies of modern human DNA tell us that at some point during this period, human populations plummeted from more than 10,000 breeding individuals to as few as 600. Homo sapiens became a highly endangered species; we almost went extinct. This “population bottleneck” means that all humans alive today are descended from this tiny group of survivors. The result: our species has less genetic diversity than a single troupe of West Africa chimpanzees.

 At the end of the last ice age 14,000 years ago there were an estimated 7,000,000 people on earth. The warming of the earth since that time has made farming possible, and let us develop in ways that weren't possible before, and there are now more than a thousand times that many humans alive today.  Of course we are adding carbon to the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean our demise. People are working on solutions as we speak. One tool is carbon capture.
 

Today, there are 43 commercial large-scale carbon capture and storage facilities all over the world. Out of these, 18 are in operation and 16 are industrial.

According to the International Energy Agency, globally more than 30 million tons of CO2 is captured from large scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage facilities every year. Over 70 percent of this is done in North America. However, industrial facilities are capturing less than one percent of the CO2 that is required to meet the Paris agreement targets for 2040, says a 2018 report compiled by the Global CCS Institute.

The good news is that, over the years, the technology has evolved to a level where there are no technical barriers to effectively storing CO2 permanently on a large scale. If used more widely, experts claim it could go a long way toward meeting the ambitious climate targets that were set in the Paris Agreement.

Trees and algae sequester carbon dioxide naturally. Trees “consume” it as part of their photosynthesis process by “absorbing” carbon into their trunks and roots and releasing oxygen back into the air. Algae replicates the same process but “absorbs” the carbon in the form of more algae. Algae can consume more carbon dioxide than trees because it can cover more surface area, grow faster, and be more easily controlled by bioreactors, given its relative size. Bioreactors can contain large amounts of algae and optimize for its growth (and related sequestration) cycle in a way that is easier than trees and takes the overgrowth of algae, dehydrates it, and ultimately puts it to use as fuel or biomass.

 

This is a relatively new process, but we usually get better at things the longer we work at them. Don't count us out yet.

[Charles Anthony]

Oops!  

You must provide a reference to that quotation. 

[oops]

https://www.cbc.ca/greathumanodyssey/content/iceage/135k/index.html#:~:text=Beginning 195%2C000 years ago%2C the,continent would have become uninhabitable.

 

Beginning 195,000 years ago,the global climate entered a period of cold and dry conditions that lasted for 70,000 years, a phase called Marine Isotope Stage 6. In interior Africa, this shift triggered drought conditions so severe that much of the continent would have become uninhabitable. Genetic studies of modern human DNA tell us that at some point during this period, human populations plummeted from more than 10,000 breeding individuals to as few as 600. Homo sapiens became a highly endangered species; we almost went extinct. This “population bottleneck” means that all humans alive today are descended from this tiny group of survivors. The result: our species has less genetic diversity than a single troupe of West Africa chimpanzees.

 

One tool to help is Carbon capture.

 

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2019/09/27/carbon-capture-technology/

 

Today, there are 43 commercial large-scale carbon capture and storage facilities all over the world. Out of these, 18 are in operation and 16 are industrial.

According to the International Energy Agency, globally more than 30 million tons of CO2 is captured from large scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage facilities every year. Over 70 percent of this is done in North America. However, industrial facilities are capturing less than one percent of the CO2 that is required to meet the Paris agreement targets for 2040, says a 2018 report compiled by the Global CCS Institute.

The good news is that, over the years, the technology has evolved to a level where there are no technical barriers to effectively storing CO2 permanently on a large scale. If used more widely, experts claim it could go a long way toward meeting the ambitious climate targets that were set in the Paris Agreement.

 

https://qz.com/1718988/algae-might-be-a-secret-weapon-to-combatting-climate-change/#:~:text=Our hearts collectively burst for,dioxide out of the air.

Trees and algae sequester carbon dioxide naturally. Trees “consume” it as part of their photosynthesis process by “absorbing” carbon into their trunks and roots and releasing oxygen back into the air. Algae replicates the same process but “absorbs” the carbon in the form of more algae. Algae can consume more carbon dioxide than trees because it can cover more surface area, grow faster, and be more easily controlled by bioreactors, given its relative size. Bioreactors can contain large amounts of algae and optimize for its growth (and related sequestration) cycle in a way that is easier than trees and takes the overgrowth of algae, dehydrates it, and ultimately puts it to use as fuel or biomass.

[Infidel Dog]

It's pretty much just noticing the obvious to see human civilizations do better in warm periods than they do in cold ones.

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

It's pretty much just noticing the obvious to see human civilizations do better in warm periods than they do in cold ones.

 

Yeah, that'll be why the Mediterranean Sea bed is littered with bodies.

People trying to get to Africa from Europe.