The New Climate Reality

The factors that create our climate are numerous .. but in general - convection currents.

 

Biofuel is not neutral .. as it produces CO2 .. just like fossil - nor sustainable .. Moore's latest enviro flick states that burning every tree in the US would give us power for a Year.

70% of Germany's "Carbon Neutral" claim is based on Biofuel .. so the claim itself is than an abject falsehood.

 

Seems to be the same conversation about solar and wind. None of these options are at all neutral and require vast amounts of emissions to otherwise produce, maintenance, and sustain them as power sources. Oh, and the child slave labor for their rare minerals... Typical of the tyrannical left to simply ignore those aspects.

 

True - and an important point - as industrialization of non industrialized populations is the root cause of the increase to CO2 and Ocean Pollution over the last 25 years.

That said -- some are more Carbon friendly than others .. the inferred claim that Biofuels are carbon friendly is abject falsehood on steroids.. the others less so.

 

Already did. You claimed I made a point based on solar irradiance. I pointed out no post of mine made such a point. Case closed.

 

So, who the hell cares what the Obamas do? Michelle touted healthy eating when she was decidedly overweight. Barack was (is?) a closet smoker. Ugh.

The only Democrat for President I've ever supported is Biden, but that's only because you folks ran a rapist crook. Run him again and I'll support a Democrat a second time.

Here's a sample...



Do you think a leftwinger would write the above post?

 

That does not address the bad thing you said about me.
Greta is a side show.

 

Of course that is left wing ideology. Go after the firm or enterprise that hires them. Figure out how to avoid going after illegals themselves. Wait till they arrive, settle down, look for a job and you want to hand them a social security card.
Just like the Democrats do.

Also you keep attacking Trump over what you perceive were harms to you only dating back many years.

 

That's the thing. I'm not the only guy (or environmental expert) which disagrees with environmental establishment. Besides, your track record of demanding investigations based on flimsy evidence isn't too great since you advocated for the Trump campaign investigation based on lies, innuendo and gossip.

 

What bad thing was that ?

 

I have thought critically. You haven't 'cause you take the words of 'experts' (which agree with your political ideology).

 

i love the idea that anyone agreeing with experts hasn't thought critically. Like only people who disagree with experts have put any thought into a subject.
If you put thought into a subject and find you agree with the experts, that immediately negates your view.

So conspiracy that it makes me giggle.

 

You post ZERO evidence that increasing CO2 is causing it, where are the temperature data for the 1500's, 1600's and 1700's?

As YOU admit that it was three weather processes that caused it, which was indeed unusual why can't you accept that as the main cause which is well supported by data?

Gee I never said CO2,and other IR absorbing gases doesn't warm the atmosphere, what I am pointing out is this addition to the already existing 500+ radiative forcing already existing in 1750, notice how little additional CO2 warm forcing has added to it since then:

===

"Next, here is the radical change in downwelling radiation at the surface from the increase in CO2 that is supposed to be driving the “CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!” What I’ve shown is the change that in theory would have occurred from the changes in CO2 from 1750 to the present, and the change that in theory will occur in the future when CO2 increases from its present value to twice the 1750 value. This is using the generally accepted (although not rigorously derived) claim that the downwelling radiation change from a doubling of CO2 is 3.5 watts per square metre (W/m2). The purpose is to show how small these CO2-caused changes are compared to total downwelling radiation.



The changes in downwelling radiation from the increase in CO2 are trivially small, lost in the noise …"

===

The Logarithmic CO2 effect is a long known phenomenon as shown in a MODTRAN based chart:



LINK

 

Gee you manage to misunderstand my statement about the 1970's heatwaves in my region of Washington state which which were more common and hotter than it is in the first decade of the 21'st century.

In June 1970, it was over 100F for 21 consecutive days, a record not approached since and I lived through it all without a problem.

In July 1971, it was over 100F for 17 consecutive days reaching the then record of 113F and several days of 110F plus days and lived through it.

The average high for July is 95F.

There were other notable heatwaves since then such as the three consecutive days of 110F to 112F in 2013 and 7 days in a row over 103F.

Meanwhile you overlooked the hard evidence that it was THREE WEATHER processes combined that caused the singular heatwave (I was in the middle of it) which was predicted DAYS before it showed up.

 

I don't need to post evidence the effect of Co2 is well known, but in any case I am happy to say such an extreme event was an unusual weather phenomena.

Yes, I've never said otherwise. In fact my argument was that one single extreme event could not be taken into account when measuring climate change. Hence my challenge to the poster misusing it to demonstrate the climate is now cooling.

What do you put the continuous long term increases in earths average temperatures down to then? The vast majority of climate scientists say its Co2 and its multiplying effect. What other forces are you aware of that have changed?
As for the downwelling of radiation who has ever claimed this was a significant factor? As far as I know the main culprit is the trapping of upwelling radiation.

 

Picking one spot on the globe - one geographical region - is similar to picking one year.. you can't base a global trend on one geographical location.

 

Ha ha. still no evidence provided that CO2 causes heatwaves which have been known to exist for THOUSANDS of years long before CO2 started going up in the 1800's.

The Positive feedback is very small and the Troposphere "hot spot" is still a cool spot according to the satellite and radio sonde data.

CO2 doesn't trap anything it absorbs and release at the speed of light, only science illiterates use that phony claim.

You don't even indicate you know what the AGW hypothesis is.

It has been cooling since 2016 a fact that some of you are resisting despite the hard evidence of it happening.

 

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Then by YOUR own statement this years heatwave in the PN region is just an outlier event.

Thank you!

 

Co2 doesn't. The current Co2 levels create higher start temperatures as you well know. And its not for me to keep disproving your endless whatabouts, none of which stand alone.
The consensus is against you, the actions being taken. I am doing you the courtesy of listening to your arguments and attempting to address them. If you keep sneering I will simply stop and you can go back to being a lost voice.

 

I was referring to the average temperature of Earth - not to wherever the heck you come from.

As has been referenced here NUMEROUS times, climatologists make it crystal clear that change in any single place may not track the average temperature of Earth.

 

You're getting confused.

Weather forecasting and climate change forecasting are two very different things.

 

You need to figure out what you are suggesting here.

 

you're not commenting to my superior understanding of that simple graph.
You're conclusions based on a handful of months out of 100's and 100's is a joke.

 

That is called the Coriolis effect.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weathe...riolis effect,left in the southern hemisphere.

 

Jack Hays has double or Triple the understanding of climate as all of the Democrats rolled up into balls.