Climate Change

[GenesisNemesis]

The good thing is, one day humans will be gone. Just like a stubborn cold, it may take awhile to get over, but e ventually, it's not even a memory.

"It may take a while to get over" but there would be no humans around to get over it.  

[no one]

Ok. I'll....type....reeeeeaaaaaallllllyyyyyy..........sloooooooooooooooooow.

The..........planet..........will.........heal. And...........one...........day..........there.............will.......be........no.......proof.........humans.............ever..........existed.

[GenesisNemesis]

Ok. I'll....type....reeeeeaaaaaallllllyyyyyy..........sloooooooooooooooooow.

The..........planet..........will.........heal. And...........one...........day..........there.............will.......be........no.......proof.........humans.............ever..........existed.

I'm aware of that.

[no one]

Excellent!

[SYZ]

In order for your argument to be taken seriously, one would have to be able to determine when it was that human activity took over as the main element in climate change....

In 1824, Joseph Fourier, found that earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum. Fourier
recognised that the atmosphere transmitted visible light waves efficiently to the earth's surface. The earth then absorbed visible
light and emitted infrared radiation in response, but the atmosphere did not transmit infrared efficiently, which therefore increased
surface temperatures. He also suspected that human activities could influence climate, although he focused primarily on
land use changes.

In an 1827 paper Fourier stated, "The establishment and progress of human societies, the action of natural forces, can notably
change, and in vast regions, the state of the surface, the distribution of water and the great movements of the air. Such effects
are able to make to vary, in the course of many centuries, the average degree of heat; because the analytic expressions contain
coefficients relating to the state of the surface and which greatly influence the temperature".

Where I find this whole discussion to be personally annoying is that I grew up in Alberta in the 50s and 60s and my family have photos of ice fields back then going back to the early 50s.   It was well known that glaciers were in retreat.  We'd go see them and you could see them retreat from one year to the next.

I have no problems at all with your personal observations from the 1950s, as I've seen similar changes in the Aussie climate during
my lifetime from the 1940s.  But your observations (nor mine) cannot be accepted as viable evidence for any of the climactic changes
we're witnessing at an ever-increasing rate—as both our observations of necessity are merely anecdotal.  And anecdotes aren't equal
to empirical evidence.

[Chas]

It's not a scientific fact.  Far from it.  It's an hypothesis which has been constructed by a number of scientists from data they have collected and interpreted.

The whole idea of global warming by human activity defies the laws of science. The planet is a system which can only warm as a result of heat being added from an external source.   That's the first law of thermodynamics, that in an isolated system, the energy remains constant.  It can change form but cannot be increased.  The planet and its atmosphere, without the sun would be an isolated system.  It's only the sun which can increase or decrease the global temperature.  So, global "warming" falls at the first hurdle.

You need to learn some actual science.  Google "greenhouse effect".  

Until then, you might consider not making such a fool of yourself.

[Alan V]

"A new poll this month by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that climate change is the top security concern of people in 13 of 26 countries surveyed, including the U.S."

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ncy-225163

[Aractus]

Let's see how the David Evans vs Brian Schmidt climate bet is going... first a bit of background about the bet. Their bet was wagered in 2007 at the height of global warming alarmism. By investing heavily into measures to reduce anthropogenic climate change, governments around the world are betting heavily on anthropogenic climate change being real. Evans evidently realised this and thought it would be a good idea for sceptics such as himself to bet against climate change. For the record - I don't think that was a good idea. I'll explain why shortly.

Their bet as mentioned was established in 2007, and bets on 10, 15, and 20 year climate trends based on 5-year averaged data against the reference year 2007. The central betline temperature is +0.15°C with a +0.02°C void margin. In other words neither of them wins the bet if the temperature increase per decade is between 0.13-0.17°C. If temperatures increase more than this Brian wins, and if they decrease less David wins. They also have a 2:1 secondary bet but we won't bother with those details here. The reference is the averaged global surface temperature of 2005-2009 ("2007") compared against 2015-19 ("2017"), 2020-24 ("2022"), and finally 2025-29 ("2027"). While this might seem complicated, it really isn't - they're comparing 2007 against 2017, 2022, and 2027, and in order to account for yearly fluctuations in temperature they're taking a 5 year average.

Here is a helpful visualisation of where they are now with their bet, with just this year to go to find the true average for the first betting period:


(Source).

Some of those numbers are slightly off when looking at GISTEMPv3 (and even more off when looking at v4). Nevertheless things don't look good for David right now:

+.613 ... 2007 (Baseline)
+.685 ... 2012 (not in bet period)
+.890 ... 2017 (absent 2019 data)

At this point 2019 would need to be colder than 2008 in order for Brian to loose the first bet, which makes it almost certain he will win it. But note the 5-year period centred on 2012 that is not in their bet - the bet would have marginally voided. This is something he reflected upon on his blog:

The Rashomon aspect comes from whether the bet looks like good news or bad news depending on your focus. I'm winning the first two months of the five year period from 2015 to 2019, which is good for me but not all that definitive. Prior to 2015, comparing years that didn't count, I was losing the bets, and prior to 2014 I was losing them badly.

Here is a visualisation adjusted to Hautbois' table with the 2018 data added:



The two of them both agree that if Brian were to loose both the later bets then it would represent a serious problem with the science of climate change. As interesting as this bet is, even by the end of the 20-year bet (to be calculated almost 23 years after they placed the bet), it is still a short-term window. Really neither of them can claim to have proven anything by the end, which is why I don't think it was ever a good idea to place a bet of this kind - unless your sole goal was to show how ridiculous it is to gamble with taxpayer money on this.

So what's the state of the science right now? I must admit I'm not on top of it at this moment. But the alarmisim is continuing, and I do know about the recent oceangate scandal. An article was published Nov 1 in Nature, Resplandy et al 2018. I might add that the article is pay-walled. In the article the authors boldly claim: (1.) their data is high-precision, (2.) that it showed that ocean temperatures rose 60% more than previous estimates, (5.) that an addition 25% emission cuts will be required to stay within the 2°C target, (4.) that their data is useful for informing climate change policy makers, (5.) it included a press release from one of the universities involved sprucing the research paper and citing the author's findings as fact. As I've said many times - you can't argue with facts. Facts are the basic information that inform us about everything else in the world. So claiming something is a fact when it's not is quite serious.

Well indeed their data was cooked. Even the journal has acknowledged this: "19 November 2018 Editor’s Note: We would like to alert readers that the authors have informed us of errors in the paper. An implication of the errors is that the uncertainties in ocean heat content are substantially underestimated. We are working with the authors to establish the quantitative impact of the errors on the published results, at which point in time we will provide a further update.".

And who found this serious error? None other than so-called "climate denier" Nic Lewis.

As I mentioned at the top, I think it's stupid to bet on climate change - including by spending trillions of dollars to curb fossil fuel emissions. Unfortunately we have a closed-loop confirmation bias with the climate models, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Really we can learn much more from the failed models then we ever can from the so-called "successful" models. 25 years from now the models that correctly predicted the trend from 2019-2044 will be held up as reliable models, which I think is absurd. We don't use correlational data to prove cause-and-effect - for example the just-published research paper Mossavar-Rahmani 2019 does not prove a causational relationship between artificially sweetened beverages and risk of mortality, and nor do the authors claim that it does. Yet this exact same type of data is claimed by climate scientists to "prove" their theory about anthropogenic climate change.

[Deltabravo]

It's not a scientific fact.  Far from it.  It's an hypothesis which has been constructed by a number of scientists from data they have collected and interpreted.

The whole idea of global warming by human activity defies the laws of science. The planet is a system which can only warm as a result of heat being added from an external source.   That's the first law of thermodynamics, that in an isolated system, the energy remains constant.  It can change form but cannot be increased.  The planet and its atmosphere, without the sun would be an isolated system.  It's only the sun which can increase or decrease the global temperature.  So, global "warming" falls at the first hurdle.

You need to learn some actual science.  Google "greenhouse effect".  

Until then, you might consider not making such a fool of yourself.

The most voluminous "greenhouse gas" is H20.  So, where are these huge clouds of other gases which are more significant than water vapour/clouds?  

Clouds don't increase the temperature of the atmosphere, by the way.  The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. It has no roof. The entire analogy is false.  The amount of energy from the sun does not somehow increase becuase it there re gases floating about in the atmosphere. The gases are a product of a transfer of energy either from the sun to water, in the case of water vapour, or by combustion in the case of human activity, but the transfer of energy by humans does not increase the energy in the planet's entire system. That is impossible.

I see you are still in the business of throwing out "terse" replies, as though you are some kind of authority, failing to deal with the issues raised and hurling insults.  

Explain how, if the sun's input of energy into the system remains constant, how the whole of the planet's energy can increase perpetually because that is what you are proposing?

[Deltabravo]

In order for your argument to be taken seriously, one would have to be able to determine when it was that human activity took over as the main element in climate change....

In 1824, Joseph Fourier, found that earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum. Fourier
recognised that the atmosphere transmitted visible light waves efficiently to the earth's surface. The earth then absorbed visible
light and emitted infrared radiation in response, but the atmosphere did not transmit infrared efficiently, which therefore increased
surface temperatures. He also suspected that human activities could influence climate, although he focused primarily on
land use changes.

In an 1827 paper Fourier stated, "The establishment and progress of human societies, the action of natural forces, can notably
change, and in vast regions, the state of the surface, the distribution of water and the great movements of the air. Such effects
are able to make to vary, in the course of many centuries, the average degree of heat; because the analytic expressions contain
coefficients relating to the state of the surface and which greatly influence the temperature".

Where I find this whole discussion to be personally annoying is that I grew up in Alberta in the 50s and 60s and my family have photos of ice fields back then going back to the early 50s.   It was well known that glaciers were in retreat.  We'd go see them and you could see them retreat from one year to the next.

I have no problems at all with your personal observations from the 1950s, as I've seen similar changes in the Aussie climate during
my lifetime from the 1940s.  But your observations (nor mine) cannot be accepted as viable evidence for any of the climactic changes
we're witnessing at an ever-increasing rate—as both our observations of necessity are merely anecdotal.  And anecdotes aren't equal
to empirical evidence.

I'm aware that there is an effect of human activity in and around cities called the "heat island" effect.  But, that doesn't change the fact that this is merely a transfer of energy, not an increase of energy in the system.  Only the sun can increase the total energy of the whole atmosphere and planet.  It cannot of itself increase the energy within it even with humans driving around in cars etc.  

The atmosphere also would, as you say, keep the surface of the planet warmer than it would without an atmosphere, but that, again, is a different issue. We are talking about increasing the whole system.  You also have to account for heat generated by humans transferring to other parts of the planet when, in fact, the heat rises and is cooled very quickly.  The only other argument one can make for human activities warming the entire system is the emission of gas such as CO2 but that has been shown to be false because it lags behind climate change. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...l-warming/

Regarding my experience of the 1950's and 60's, the point I was making is not that I've experienced it, so it's true. What I would like is for someone to actually stick their necks out and say that all the melting of the ice that covered North America right down into the northern USA was caused by humans.  I've not seen any sane person attempt that.  If scientists were right in saying that we were at the end of an ice age, then please explain how you set a point, if you believe in human-generated climate change, when this decline in ice cover stopped being caused by naturally occurring, sun-generated, warming, and started being caused by human activity.

Explain?

PS. Your use of the term "anecdotal" is incorrect. It's not an anecdote that the whole of western Canada and the north of the continental USA was covered by ice. It is an empirical, proven fact that it existed and has melted.

[Aractus]

I made a small error with the second graph, I have corrected it.

[Alan V]

The most voluminous "greenhouse gas" is H20.  So, where are these huge clouds of other gases which are more significant than water vapour/clouds?  

From my post #88:

Greenhouse gases

Certain gases are well-known to physicists to be heat-trapping gases. To compare the heating potential of these gases, each is given a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) value, or a comparison with the heating potential of CO2 which is assigned the value of 1. Global warming potential equals the potency (CO2e) times the volume in the atmosphere times the residence time in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted from fossil fuel burning, cement making, logging and burning forests, and tilling the soil. Although it is one of the weaker greenhouse gases, the fact that we are pouring such great quantities into the atmosphere, and that it can remain there for hundreds of years, makes it of the greatest concern.

Methane (CH4) is emitted from the production and transport of natural gas, raising livestock, decaying landfills, and agriculture. For instance, bacteria in flooded rice paddies produce methane. The average lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is 12 years, but it oxidizes into CO2 which remains much longer. Methane is 86 CO2e over 20 years, and 34 CO2e over 100 years. The methane concentration in the atmosphere is now at two and a half times the preindustrial level, but its concentration is several hundred times lower than CO2.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted from agricultural fertilizers, burning fossil fuels, industrial processes, and solid waste. It remains in the atmosphere for 121 years on average, is broken down by sunlight, and is 298 CO2e in a 100 year period. N2O is up 15% since 1750, but its concentration is also low.

Tropospheric ozone (O3) only remains in the atmosphere for 50 days.

Fluorocarbons (CFCs and HFCs) remain in the atmosphere for over 1000 years, and are many times more powerful than CO2, but are emitted in trace amounts. HFCs are 1000 to 9000 CO2e, depending on the chemical composition. All are produced by humans.

Water vapor (H2O) is the most abundant – about 10 times more than CO2 – and powerful greenhouse gas, but it only stays in the atmosphere for an average of 9 days before it washes out. However, water vapor is nevertheless a very powerful feedback. As the earth warms from other greenhouse gases trapping heat, more water evaporates and remains in the atmosphere, amplifying the heating.

Clouds don't increase the temperature of the atmosphere, by the way.  The atmosphere is not like a greenhouse. It has no roof. The entire analogy is false.  The amount of energy from the sun does not somehow increase becuase it there re gases floating about in the atmosphere. The gases are a product of a transfer of energy either from the sun to water, in the case of water vapour, or by combustion in the case of human activity, but the transfer of energy by humans does not increase the energy in the planet's entire system. That is impossible.

From my post #117:

The more the air warms, the more water vapor it can carry as humidity. For every 1̊C that the temperature rises on average, the humidity rises by 7%. And that water vapor is a greenhouse gas too, trapping yet more heat. While clouds can not only trap more heat but block sunlight, the net effect is still in favor of warming.

Additional comment: Clouds are still a subject of close scientific study, and the variations of the projections between different climate models is in large part because of the different ways clouds are still modeled.

Explain how, if the sun's input of energy into the system remains constant, how the whole of the planet's energy can increase perpetually because that is what you are proposing?

The earth is presently out of energy balance.  Before the industrial revolution, the amount of energy the earth received from the sun was equal to the amount escaping back into space, keeping the earth at a steady temperature.  Now with the presence of 45% more CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount escaping into space has been reduced relative to the amount received from the sun.  This is confirmed by careful satellite measurements.  Therefore the lower atmosphere, the troposphere, is heating up relative to the upper atmosphere, which is cooling.

I would just like to add that I now think you are a bad faith actor exactly because you have so far refused to read what I have already posted in this forum.  Each time you ask questions, I have answered them in whole or part with what I have previously posted.  If you want to demonstrate you represent a credible position in this debate, you should do your homework.  Just like Chas said.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's not a scientific fact.  Far from it.  It's an hypothesis which has been constructed by a number of scientists from data they have collected and interpreted.

The whole idea of global warming by human activity defies the laws of science. The planet is a system which can only warm as a result of heat being added from an external source.   That's the first law of thermodynamics, that in an isolated system, the energy remains constant.  It can change form but cannot be increased.  The planet and its atmosphere, without the sun would be an isolated system.  It's only the sun which can increase or decrease the global temperature.  So, global "warming" falls at the first hurdle.

Then, it falls again, because, as the deniers say, temperature change is cyclical.  It goes up and down, stays the same, depending on solar activity.  And...that is exactly what has happened over the past nearly twenty years as the planet has not, in fact, warmed.

Then you have climate "change", which is the intellectual cowards escape route.  Change the argument and hope no one notices, then abuse anyone who disagrees with you.

The worst intellectual sin of warmists is that they refuse absolutely to explain why temperature was increasing from the time the ice age began it's decline.  In the grand scheme of things, the twenty or so years in which human industry has been blamed for warming climate, is a mere blip as against the time frames of the ice ages.   No one would be so idiotic as to say they were caused by humans, but, hey, all of a sudden, the sun has no part in this process...it's entirely human caused. We go from being insignificant up against the forces of nature to being the controllers of the planet's entire climate systems and we are so well tuned that we, as a collective, can decide to turn the switch off and return the planet to a temperature which "we know" must be the best for all of mankind.   That's arrogance for you.

Anti-AGW is a conspiracy theory, as this demonstrates.

[Alan V]

The only other argument one can make for human activities warming the entire system is the emission of gas such as CO2 but that has been shown to be false because it lags behind climate change. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...l-warming/

The rise of CO2 lags several hundred years behind the warming of the planet, caused by changes in the Milankovitch cycles, in natural climate change, which is not what we are presently experiencing.  Three points: (1) that rise in CO2 amplifies the warming, more or less doubling it in the natural cycle, (2) Milankovitch cycles are too slow to account for present changes, and are in fact out of phase with any present warming, and (3) measurable greenhouse gas emissions are more than enough to account for the warming we are observing. Present CO2 levels would, in fact, have led to even more warming of the atmosphere if (a) 93% of the heat was not being absorbed by the ocean, and (b) particulates in the atmosphere caused by industrial emissions were not reflecting a fair amount of sunlight.

Yet again, you fail by being misinformed about the science.  You are repeating fossil fuel industry-funded denialist talking points?

Here is a website with a long list of denialist talking points, with the scientific answers to them:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you read through the information already provided and easily accessible, you will find that the conversation about climate change has progressed considerably beyond your concerns.

[Alan V]

As I mentioned at the top, I think it's stupid to bet on climate change - including by spending trillions of dollars to curb fossil fuel emissions. Unfortunately we have a closed-loop confirmation bias with the climate models, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Really we can learn much more from the failed models then we ever can from the so-called "successful" models. 

Projections of future climate change are based on paleoclimatology rather than mere speculations.  The models themselves are based on what happened before in earth's history.

As for the money, we stand to lose a great deal more wealth if we ignore climate change than we would spend trying to compensate for it.  This has already been verified by economists and military planners.

Doubt cuts both ways.  It could actually get much worse rather than better, since the climate sensitivity number may be higher rather than lower. Yes, we don't know everything about what is happening, but that doubt is a result of the climate already changing.  IPCC projections have already been shown to be conservative about the rate of ice sheets melting for instance. Ice sheets are melting considerably faster than previously projected in the latest, 2013-2014 report.

[SYZ]

In 1824, Joseph Fourier, found that earth's atmosphere kept the planet warmer than would be the case in a vacuum.....

I'm aware that there is an effect of human activity in and around cities called the "heat island" effect. 

The heat island effect has very little to do with overall global warming, apart from a possible increase in fossil-fuel
produced electricity requirements for air-conditioning and refrigeration.

But, that doesn't change the fact that this is merely a transfer of energy, not an increase of energy in the system.  Only the sun can increase the total energy of the whole atmosphere and planet.  It cannot of itself increase the energy within it even with humans driving around in cars etc.

Wrong.  The sun—of course—does input radiant energy into the earth's environment (in the form of heat).  With a buildup
of the "blanketing" effect from an increasing ozone layer, an ever-decreasing amount of this infra-red energy escapes into space.
Hence the planet and its atmosphere heats up further. 

...The only other argument one can make for human activities warming the entire system is the emission of gas such as CO2 but that has been shown to be false because it lags behind climate change. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...l-warming/

You obviously misinterpreted the thrust of the article you linked to, which clearly stated that:  "The lag proves that rising CO₂ did
not cause the initial warming as past ice ages ended, but it does not in any way contradict the idea that higher CO₂ levels
cause warming."

...What I would like is for someone to actually stick their necks out and say that all the melting of the ice that covered North America right down into the northern USA was caused by humans.  I've not seen any sane person attempt that.

Once again, you've misinterpreted the facts behind the geoscience.  Of course glaciers have been retreating in North America,
but with little input from humans.  And no scientist has suggested any major anthropological cause for deglaciation.

Earth and Life Institute Researcher professor Michel Crucifix explains why the passage from a glacial period to an interglacial
period (10,000 years) could be so abrupt. "There are two main hypotheses. First, we know that when ice accumulates, it distorts
the lithosphere by forming large basins in which it builds up. Beginning in the 1980s, we saw something that made the ice more
vulnerable:  when a rise in solar energy melts surface ice, the resulting water infiltrates the basin and accelerates melting. The
system is thus more prone to melting when these basins have had time to form.

Second, when we enter a glaciation period the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere diminishes. Yet the French scientist
Didier Paillard suggested that when ocean level falls owing to glaciation, abyssal circulation – deep ocean currents – in the
Southern Ocean can change. And the amount of CO₂ that had been accumulated in the ocean up to that point is thus released
into the atmosphere by the change in abyssal circulation. This abrupt rise in concentration could trigger the start of deglaciation.
So it’s probable that these two phenomena act together."

PS.  Your use of the term "anecdotal" is incorrect.

Nope.  Your personal observations are purely anecdotal, with no evidence supporting their veracity.  Where are your photos?
Or are you simply recalling memories—which may be very distorted with the passing of time.

And I've just noticed that you said earlier; "That's the first law of thermodynamics, that in an isolated system, the energy
remains constant." Only problem? The earth is not an "isolated system".

[Alan V]

"Scientists are working to develop refillable, or so-called flow, batteries that can be refueled in minutes at a vast network of converted gas stations. It’s a shift that could make electric vehicles (EVs) more attractive to drivers who are wary of long charging times."

"Like the lithium-ion batteries that power most electric vehicles on the road today, flow batteries release energy through chemical reactions between the ends of the battery and a substance known as electrolyte. In a lithium-ion battery, the electrolyte sits between the ends of the battery; when it’s depleted, it has to be recharged. In a flow battery, the electrolyte is pumped from a tank through the battery; when it’s depleted, it can simply be swapped out for a fresh batch."

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/new...ncna974556

[Aractus]

As for the money, we stand to lose a great deal more wealth if we ignore climate change than we would spend trying to compensate for it.  This has already been verified by economists and military planners.

That's a theory, or a hypothesis, not a fact. Let's wait and see what happens.

Doubt cuts both ways.  It could actually get much worse rather than better, since the climate sensitivity number may be higher rather than lower.  Yes, we don't know everything about what is happening, but that doubt is a result of the climate already changing.  IPCC projections have already been shown to be conservative about the rate of ice sheets melting for instance.  Ice sheets are melting considerably faster than previously projected in the latest, 2013-2014 report.

And that's just speculation. What I've said for years now is this - there are two components to climate change. This is not controversial and climate alarmists are loathed to admit this. The components are this:

(1.) Natural drivers.
(2.) Anthropogenic drivers.

No one knows precisely how much (if at all) each of these is influencing the climate.

It is widely believed, although not proven, that the world's average surface temperature rose 0.6°C in the 20th century. Should we doubt the accuracy of our measurements? Well perhaps as you can see here that many thermometers are very badly placed and have over the course of the last 100 years had artificial heat sources move in to their proximity:




Skip to 7:41 to see the thermometer placements.

Regardless, let's assume that the trend is legitimate. Let's also assume that there was an anthropogenic source of warming driven by CO2, Methane, and black carbon. What was the natural trend in the 20th century doing? Here are some examples of what it may have been doing:

(1.) Natural drivers + 0.5°C ... leaves anthropogenic divers only +0.1°C.

or perhaps:

(2.) Natural drivers - 0.5°C ... leaves anthropogenic drivers +1.1°C!

So you can see that our assumption about what natural drivers were doing over the 20th century drastically impacts on how much the anthropogenic influence is. Another way to state that is this - in the absence of human activity, would the world have been warming or cooling in the 20th century - and by how much? No one knows the answer to that question.

But you can see that above our assumption about what the natural climate drivers were doing changes the influence that GHGs has by an order of magnitude. It is the difference between there being an actual crisis, and there being nothing to worry about. I am not at all worried about climate change, and like I said I think betting on it is the wrong thing to do. Nuclear power is much worse in my opinion than coal. This week Greens MP Adam Bandt claimed coal is toxic and compared it to asbestos while being interviewed by David Spears (a respected journalist). You can listen for yourself. This is the problem with this debate, such extreme overreaching claims are made, when we don't even know or aren't sure about the basic facts and science.

Also, there is no plan in place to actually reduce methane emissions. The only emissions actually targeted by any industrialised country is CO2, which as you would be aware under current climate theory and "consensus" is only about 50% responsible for the anthropogenic trend. To put that another way, if the alarmists are right and we're facing a +4°C change over the 21st century, and it's 100% anthropogenic, then cutting emissions by 50% will only reduce the temperature rise by 1°C (actually less than that, but you get the point). Also biofuel is an ecological disaster - thank god we don't have it in Australia. That's the problem, the alternatives to Coal and Oil are not better ecologically, even if we accept that global warming is "bad", I don't think it outweighs the negatives of the alternatives. And again - I don't think climate change is "good" or "bad" it's just something that happens that we need to adapt to, I think framing it as "good" or "bad" is stupid as it drives ideological policy instead of evidence-based policies designed for the greater good.


Look at Venezuela - a coal and oil rich country that decided to be driven by ideology instead. They decided that shutting off coal fire power stations and limiting the work week to two days per week was a better compromise than burning more coal. I'm sure I don't need to explain how these ideologically-driven decisions were absolutely devastating to their economy and directly led to the crises they're in at the moment. That's the problem with this debate.

[Alan V]

As for the money, we stand to lose a great deal more wealth if we ignore climate change than we would spend trying to compensate for it.  This has already been verified by economists and military planners.

That's a theory, or a hypothesis, not a fact. Let's wait and see what happens.

Doubt cuts both ways.  It could actually get much worse rather than better, since the climate sensitivity number may be higher rather than lower.  Yes, we don't know everything about what is happening, but that doubt is a result of the climate already changing.  IPCC projections have already been shown to be conservative about the rate of ice sheets melting for instance.  Ice sheets are melting considerably faster than previously projected in the latest, 2013-2014 report.

And that's just speculation. What I've said for years now is this - there are two components to climate change. This is not controversial and climate alarmists are loathed to admit this. The components are this:

(1.) Natural drivers.
(2.) Anthropogenic drivers.

No one knows precisely how much (if at all) each of these is influencing the climate.

I won't bother to answer your misinformation with a detailed response, since I already offered a detailed summary earlier in this conversation.  If you are really interested, you can read most of my posts from #79 to #170.

In all, I have read 60 books on climate change and associated issues to date.  My summary is largely of repeated points from those books.  The science is quite clear at this point, about both potential damages and what is causing what.

The climate change conversation is already far more sophisticated and well-informed than you understand, at least in many countries and between many scientists and experts.

[Aractus]

So then answer me - what were the natural drivers doing? Nothing? How do you know?

[Minimalist]

Aractus Wrote: As I mentioned at the top, I think it's stupid to bet on climate change - including by spending trillions of dollars to curb fossil fuel emissions.

Now you really sound like that moron Trump.

[Aractus]

Now you really sound like that moron Trump.

Your country voted for him.

And now the half of the country that voted but didn't vote for him have Trump derangement syndrome and have been doing the most fucked up shit imaginable. Just this week I heard that an American actor faked a racist attack - he claimed that Trump supporters in red MAGA hats attacked him, but it turns out he paid his friends $3,500 to do some acting because he was so desperate to be a Trump victim. Story here. So please don't be surprised that when I hear you playing the victim, complaining about your democratically elected leader, that I'm not impressed. Go tell Jussie Smollett how sorry you are for yourself that Trump is your leader, don't tell me about it. If he's as bad as you claim, well next time don't vote for him. Or put up a better candidate. Don't forget the guy that ran second to him, Ted Cruz, is a batshit crazy evangelical Christian and if he was your leader you'd probably be in a bible internment camp right now.

I was more horrified when GW Bush was elected, personally. Another batshit crazy warmongering Christian who believed god told him to kill the Arabs, who set up Guantanamo Bay as well as US Government sanctioned torture. Trump is connected to the Russian Mafia - that's what the police advised the NSW government in 1987:



But like I said that was your choice - you and your countrymen to vote for who they wanted, and if you wanted to vote for someone connected to the Russian Mafia that was your choice. There are a lot of leaders of nation-states much worse then him no matter how much you hate your leader so spare a thought for them. At least you had the choice of who to vote for. We have a fucking joke of a leader as well by the way, so stop whining about it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

T.rump did not get a majority of the votes.

[Alan V]

So then answer me - what were the natural drivers doing? Nothing? How do you know?

I apologize for saying "your misinformation" rather than "such misinformation."  I was already in bed when I thought of that correction.  It is not the fault of most people repeating such fossil fuel industry talking points that they are so commonly found and repeated on the internet and even in many books.  However, such points have already been refuted again and again by the actual climate scientists, who are working at the disadvantage of not having tens of millions of dollars to promote their ideas.

Here are my posts #94 and #95:

The Keeling Curve

In the mid-1950s, Charles Keeling at Caltech invented an instrument to measure CO2 in the atmosphere. He located his device at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, in an area free of local pollution. When Keeling started measuring CO2 in 1958, and in the first full year of measuring in 1959, it averaged 316 parts per million. In 2016, it measured 400 ppm all year round for the first time. That number is presently increasing at a rate of 2.5 ppm per year. This pattern has been confirmed by about 100 other sites located around the globe. This rate of increase is about 1000 times the rate during past natural warming periods.

The sawtooth pattern of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1958 is called the Keeling Curve. CO2 varies about 8 ppm on a seasonal cycle, due to deciduous trees taking up CO2 in the spring and releasing it in the fall in the northern hemisphere.

Since CO2 is only one of several greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere, it is important to remember that although CO2 is now over 405 ppm, the CO2e is between 440 and 480 ppm, a level not seen on the earth for millions of years. In the 800,000 years before 1750, CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm. There is some controversy about what should be considered a safe level of CO2. Some say 450 ppm, while others say we passed the safe level at 350 ppm.

Land-based ecosystems take up about 25% of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel use. Oceans absorb another 30%, leaving the remaining 45% to accumulate in the atmosphere.

The evidence that the CO2 buildup is caused by humans

The additional CO2 which has been accumulating in the atmosphere from deforestation and burning fossil fuels has an isotopic “fingerprint” which is depleted of CO2 13 and 14. This is the “smoking gun,” or how scientists know that most additional CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere over the last 250 years has come from human actions.

Fossil fuel burning can more than account for the rise in CO2. Scientists know how much coal, oil, and natural gas is burned each year. Emissions far overrun the earth’s natural ability to remove it from the atmosphere, so CO2 concentrations will remain elevated for centuries. No natural source has been identified, especially given the fast rate of accumulation.

Burning fossil fuels uses oxygen, and scientists have measured that oxygen has decreased by 0.1% in the atmosphere.

The observed warming in the lower atmosphere, or troposphere, and cooling in the upper atmosphere, or stratosphere, is exactly the pattern expected, since greenhouse gases trap heat close to the earth’s surface. Less heat is escaping to space. If the sun was responsible, a more uniform warming would be observed.

Since greenhouse gases reflect infrared whether the sun is shining or not, there has been more warming in the winter than the summer over the average, and more warming in the nighttime than the daytime over land. 

The climate has departed from any known natural cycle, and is changing at an unnaturally fast rate. Climate models including greenhouse gas accumulations match scientific observations. This is yet more evidence that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming.

Other explanations?

There are only so many possible causes of climate change. The continental drift and massive volcanic eruptions of millions of years past are no longer possible explanations. Recent volcanic eruptions increase greenhouse gas emissions less than 1% of the total observed. Orbital variations work on much longer periods of time. Solar output has not increased significantly since 1979, when NASA began to monitor it using satellites. The usual small variations in solar output on an 11-year cycle is not a trend upwards. Only the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere can explain present climate change, and they are responsible for almost all of it. Other hypotheses, like the tenuous relationship between clouds and cosmic rays, must still explain why greenhouse gases do not produce the warming expected. Greenhouse gases alone are a sufficient explanation.

The consensus

The consensus of experts reviewing hundreds of studies of accumulating evidence is that there is a 95% chance that most of observed climate change over the past 60 years can be attributed to human activities and especially to the burning of fossil fuels. Without humans, there would be negligible warming or a slight cooling from other causes over the 20th century. This consensus includes such scientific institutions as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Meteorological Society, NASA, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the scientific academies of all major industrial nations. Multiple surveys have found that between 97 and 99% of qualified scientists support the consensus. Among the 3% or less who do not, most exhibited methodological flaws or other mistakes in their work, and there was no consensus between them about other possible causes. They have virtually no significant peer-reviewed science to back them up. So there is no consistent alternative theory to human-caused climate change.

[Alan V]

So then answer me - what were the natural drivers doing? Nothing? How do you know?

I should also add that scientists are very concerned about natural positive feedback loops kicking in because the earth's albedo is decreasing with ice loss, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor with warming, and methane and carbon dioxide are leaking from melting permafrost.  That is why keeping total warming below 2 degrees C over the preindustrial is so important.

Also, from post #88:

Certain gases are well-known to physicists to be heat-trapping gases. To compare the heating potential of these gases, each is given a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) value, or a comparison with the heating potential of CO2 which is assigned the value of 1. Global warming potential equals the potency (CO2e) times the volume in the atmosphere times the residence time in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted from fossil fuel burning, cement making, logging and burning forests, and tilling the soil. Although it is one of the weaker greenhouse gases, the fact that we are pouring such great quantities into the atmosphere, and that it can remain there for hundreds of years, makes it of the greatest concern.

Methane (CH4) is emitted from the production and transport of natural gas, raising livestock, decaying landfills, and agriculture. For instance, bacteria in flooded rice paddies produce methane. The average lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is 12 years, but it oxidizes into CO2 which remains much longer. Methane is 86 CO2e over 20 years, and 34 CO2e over 100 years. The methane concentration in the atmosphere is now at two and a half times the preindustrial level, but its concentration is several hundred times lower than CO2.

Other questions from your longer post are also answered in my posted summary, but here is one point that wasn't:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-h...effect.htm