Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change

Exactly.

You need better sources.

And, you should check out what you you post.

 

You just refuted yourself.

 

But what you mean sources you agree with. That's how religion works

 

Wrong again.

 

Thus sayith the lord.

You know if you want to escape the idea that your stupid religion is exactly a religion then quit acting exactly like religious people when their religion is being criticized

 

Perhaps your problem is that you see science and the consultation of science as religion.

But, science doesn't work like religion does.

I know it's in right wing vogue to despise educated thought. But, Republicans (and Democrats, too) need to face the fact that we don't make wiser decisions by sticking to ignorance.

 

no the problem is you use the word science and some sort of magical incantation.

You evoke the word but you don't know what it means. And you think saying it over and over just magically makes something into science and it doesn't.

Creating an outgroup for an US versus them mentality, and saying that the outgroup is not capable of knowing things because they don't believe in the one true path is a fundamental component of cults and religion.

You have a scientologists think their religion is based on science too.

Your religion is exactly like theirs so far. Let's see if you can make it look any dumber.

 

You have that exactly backwards.

The fundamental component of cults and religion is to totally ignore science.

In fact, the direction of religion has included an attack on science, denying what science has found in fields of human sexuality, cosmology, biology, etc. We see some level of the notion that universities are the hotbed of evil. In primary and secondary education we see religious assault on a range of topics today.

 

Praise be the lord

All you are doing and saying the words science as though it's some sort of mystical incantation.

Every believer in every religion thinks their religion is the one true religion you're no different.

 

It's pretty pathetic not to know the difference between science and religion.

 

All you do is evoke the word science like you are summoning a deity.

I don't think you even know what that word means.

 

No, we see that you only discuss science that you agree with, and completely ignore any that you do not agree with.

That places your arguments entirely in the area of "faith", and that is religion.

 

As you ignore that climate shifts (even radical ones) have been the case since the planet formed.

That in the past millennium we have had periods of temperatures warmer than we have today.

That the "predictions" very consistently seem to ignore any other natural phenomenon that have altered the climate, even when we know that affect happened yet they pretend it never existed.

That there are no accurate predictions made over 2 decades ago that are even close to the reality now that have not been heavily modified.

These are simple facts we hit you with over and over, and you ignore over and over.

Even trying to refute what we have showen over and over, that a great many of the predictors now a few decades ago were screaming "New Ice Age".

 

This is totally false.

If you want to cite something, then cite it.

 

Yes.

Climatologists point out that the warming that is occurring today is caused by humans.

Accusing climatologists of ignoring natural cycles is a little silly. They are the ones that informed you of those cycles.

One has to know those cycles in order to figure out what is causing them, obviously.

For example, over the last few years the sun has been decreasing in irradiance while the temperature of Earth has been increasing. So, one must look for other reasons that Earth is warming.

Also, one has to consider what will happen when solar irradiance increases dramatically from where it has been - as is sure to be the case.

 

And once again, false science.

Do you honestly think "solar radiation" is the only influence on temperatures?

Or to you even realize that almost none of these "climatologists": ever discuss something as basic as albedo? In fact, I pretty much laugh whenever some "studies" try to talk about how the greatest warming is in the far Northern Hemisphere. Never mind that is an area that has been under ice for over 100.000 years.

If a climatologist can not discuss such a simple thing as albedo, then to me they are so myopic that they are only talking about such a short amount of time that it does not even matter. Not unlike the fools over 3 decades ago that saw record winters in New England and started predicting "new ice age".

I do notice however that myself and many of us do actually discuss the science. Yet all you can do it talk about faith. How we have to believe what others tell us. as if it was passed down from On High on tablets made of stone.

 

That is false.

• Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?

Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).

Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)

Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming.

 

I have cited things to death with you. Even giving exact quotes from the location I cited. And you just vomit up a link alone with absolutely no context.

Like the one you have done a few times, with hundreds of random names that you says proves you are right.

You have absolutely no credibility in demanding sources. Especially as any given you simply ignore.

But here, here is a reference.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

 

And once again, we return to albedo.

Over the past hundred years the temperatures are increasing as more solar radiation is being retained by the planet and not reflected back into space. This has been known for quite a while now, and actually has almost nothing to do with the climate. Which is why "climatologists" never even discuss it.

But the albedo of the planet has been decreasing for over 25,000 years. And the planet has been warming for over 25,000 years. And as the albedo decreases, temperatures will rise even faster. That is because the shrinking of the ice is then followed by an increase in foliage, which lowers the albedo even more.

This is simple science, that most geologists know as it applies to ice on the ground, which is a big changer in the surface geologically. During the last ice age, the albedo was 0.84. During the Little Ice Age, it was around .4. Today, it is around .3.

And it is going to continue to decrease, and temperatures will continue to rise. I find it amazing that almost every single person some in here are arguing against like myself clearly states that things are warming, and going to get even warmer.

Your problem is that we in fact look to science to see that, and not the faith that some seem to preach.

 

The view I find persuasive is that put forward by Professors Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark, and their collaborators.

 

I clearly cited that it is NOT the only influence.

What the heck confused you so thoroughly???

???. Albedo is discussed all the time. It's a well known issue with melting ice, including sea ice. It's also stated to be an issue with tundra.

How could you read about climatology and miss that?

LOL.

NASA, NOAA, IPCC, and numerous other sources of climatology ARE science.

I don't know where the heck you're finding support for your views - views that the vast majority of climatologists the world over see as bunk.

 

You keep chanting this mantra but never explain why a large percentage of scientists outside of political bureaucracy disagree. And why actual data vs "model" output seems to support that view.

 

This is TOTAL nonsense. Study after study shows that the vast majority of scientists studying any of the fields of climatology agree that Earth is warming and the reason is human activity.

Also, please note that EVERYTHING done in studying climate includes the use of models. There are even models for the various sensors used for temperature and chemistry. You can't identify outlying data points or calculate error without knowing this stuff.

So, cite something.

 

Only because you don't read the others.

You don't accept cites that disagree with you her-worshipling reverence. Fact still is no model in use today can replicate the actual climate over the past several decades.

 

"Climate change"TM only exists outside of the very real and very proven physics of HC + O2 => CO2 + H2O. All the bullshit studies in the world collapse in the face of that simple fact.

The best one can do if you believe in "climate change" is hope like hell you're wrong. Because there simply isn't anything non-fatal to most of the population on earth than trying to extinguish real energy production. Period.

And until the climate change ninnies come up with a way to power civilization without producing green house gases (use all that spare time and government money to, you know, actually fix something) not even worth discussing.