The religion of climate change.

That's a true statement. Yet the stratosphere temperature trend is quite clearly down. It's the same thing with the lower troposphere temperature. There are periods when the troposphere slows its warming pace and sometimes even cools yet the general trend is quite clearly up. It's the same with the hydrosphere too. Except that in recent years as the CO2 effect dominates more and more over natural variation the natural cyclic signal has declined there. That's why the variation in oceanic heat content has declined over the decades and is now exhibiting a steady upward trend. That's expected because the hydrosphere takes up 93% of the excess heat with land, atmosphere, and cryosphere combining for only 7%.

 

By the way, those spikes in stratospheric temperature round 1982 and 1991 aren't random. The two largest volcanic eruptions in recent memory are responsible. El Chichon (1982) and Pinatubo (1991) are the culprits. This is an example of a natural process that effects the climate. It also gave scientists the opportunity to calibrate the climate sensitivity of Earth via wholly natural processes. It's direct observational evidence that has absolutely nothing to do with computer models. Pretty cool stuff!

 

The graphs are, well, unable then to tell us what we're viewing. If 0 simply means temp at start, but not a real value in K, then so what? You cannot have a negative kelvin, can you? At least not in a physical world. Which is why it is call absolute zero. So, if the temp is declining from 0, that seems unlikely, no? So why not just start with a real number then? Looks to me like someone is trying to be funny here. Like, "those doofs will be to stoopid to know what 0 K means... and look, we're showing getting colder than that... Like a joke.

So what is the baseline temp for consideration? And losing 1 K is equivalent to losing 1 C, right? (where 10C = 28, 10 + 273..)
10°C + 273.15 = 283.15

 

All of the Carbon released into the air by burning fossil fuels was once in the air to begin with - and yet somehow life thrived.

I keep waiting for the climate change alarmists to stop using private jets and large luxury yachts for transportation, to start living in 400 square foot tiny houses, to telecommute to their climate conferences, and so forth. Somehow this doesn't happen.

I notice that in most. if not all climate change discussions, liberals never discuss the personal lifestyle changes they have made to impact the so called horror of climate change. How many of the liberals posting here don't don't consume oil based products or live in a tiny house? I invite the climate change alarmists and the usual TDS crowd to discuss the personal lifestyle changes they have made to avert the horror of global warming.

If the technology of the US (as used by humans) has such a horrible impact on the planet let's try to limit our human population by not importing millions of people (with a high birth rate) from low technology countries to high technology countries such as the US.

 

The message, as you indicate is quite disjointed here. No one on the left is actually willing to do anything about climate change. They aren't going to change or otherwise modify their lifestyles. But, the key point is that the expect everyone else to do just that. And when you confront an AGW acolyte with their obvious hypocrisy, especially when they generally all view open boarders as a real social solution, the fact that then all of those millions or tens of millions of newly empowered immigrants will all then extend the problem just isn't an issue for them. Think about it. For every million new immigrants, how many cars? How much air conditioning? How much additional food production to support their new heavier lifestyle in this country? If, as liberals suggest, sanctuary cities are designed to skew the electoral college, how can that population density also then not effect the heat island effect of those cities? or worse, effect the overall contribution of their feared CO2 production? The answer is simple. I cannot do otherwise. It is a must happen consequence of their otherwise inclusive policy.

So what gives? I assert that the reality is that climate change is the ruse through which liberals think they can wedge and otherwise influence policy absent their need to actually do anything that might actually effect them.

 

The graph clearly shows the temperature trajectory. Positive values mean warming. Negative values mean cooling.

0K in the chart does not mean absolute zero. It means the difference between the recorded temperature and the baseline is 0.

Anomalies are better for analysis because of the following mathematical trick. Note that as in before T0 is the baseline temperature. Tn is the temperature at time n. B is the systematic bias.

ΔT = (T0+B) - (Tn+B)
ΔT = (T0-Tn) + (B-B)
ΔT = T0 - Tn

Do you see how systematic biases cancel out? This has two advantages. First, it's more accurate. Second, it makes comparing different datasets easier.

You probably didn't pick up on this, but I already sprung the trap on you. This data comes in part from John Christy's UAH satellite dataset. He is even listed as one of the authors of the chart. In other words, you are indicting an outspoken skeptic of AGW of "funny" business and of being stupid. Do you really think Christy doesn't know what 0K means?

Anyway, your statement wreaks of the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias going here. Why not take the plunge down the right side of Mount Stupid and learn why Kelvin is used, why anomaly analysis is used, etc. instead of arrogantly insinuating that scientists are stupid. And if for no other reason at least you wouldn't be undermining whatever few scientists there are that are still on your side.

 

They can't even forego the haute cuisine and high class prostitutes to be found in places like Paris, i.e., by telecommuting to their climate conferences.

 

True. However, it took on the order of 10,000,000 years for fossil fuels to form. We are releasing all of it into the atmosphere on the order of 100 years. In other words, we releasing it a rate that is 5 orders of magnitude faster than it was put into the ground.

Also, the issue isn't about biomass thriving. The issue is the suppression of GDP and Earth's carrying capacity for humans.

That still won't solve the problem though. This a tragedy of the commons problem that requires a concerted effort by everyone.

So you want liberals to bear the burden of the harm they cause to the environment plus bear your burden as well?

I know your type. You'll let your dog sh** in someone else's yard, but if that same person returns the favor you'll get pissed off. You think you get a free pass to do whatever the hell you want to and if it happens to harm someone else or the environment not only is it someone else's fault, but it's someone else's burden to carry. Am I right?

 

Oh... geeze... it was a trap...

You entirely missed the point. The term facetious might add some clarity for you. I simply asked to see if you could actually tell me what the beginning temp was. And why, given the graph that you could explain all of the axial components. So, 0 is arbitrary, and Kelvin is kelvin because it's mysterious. Huntsville is a hoot by the way. You should go there. drive a prius. Enjoy your experience...

I don't suggest that scientists are stupid. I suggested that knowing the breed helps understand their humor. Having your input helps identify that you aren't one of them.

So, Indonesia is rattling itself apart. I bet it's because the water is warmer... right?

 

You talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Here are three words for you to ponder - "lead by example."

 

In other words "let me do what I want and you deal with the problem".

For what it's worth I have taken steps to reduce my carbon footprint. Strangely though my motivation was based primarily on my own personal financial gain. I'm not saying an apathetic to the benefit to the environment. I'm just saying that I wouldn't have done it just for the environmental benefit alone. Like most people I'm not altruistic and am driven by a desire to increase the general well being and economic status of my own family first. That's why this is a tragedy of the commons problem.

 

This is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that when and if the spokespersons for the movement to limit the output of Carbon demonstrate personal lifestyle changes I will start taking them seriously and listening to their message. In other words, I don't accept liberal mandates that only apply to the little people.

Apparently we are in agreement that the market should drive the adoption of technology that reduces one's carbon footprint. For example I would love to be able to buy a viable electric car but I want a car with a range of 400 miles and a capability to function in a cold climate.

 

One would think that co2 levels in our atmosphere would have some effect upon the earth's climate. I think this is based upon scientific evidence, right? What is not known with certainty is just what kind of change is seen at particular levels of Co2. The climate modeling has not been been an accurate predictor of co2 level and temp. So, there is still much not known in this field, like many other fields.

But sure, generally speaking man's production of co2 from burning fossil fuels which has created the modern world and modern civilization has to affect climate, along with the vast deforestation that removes co2 extractors from the ecology. To what degree, to to what ends is where the questions have not been answered, credibly, given the vast amount of gray area in knowledge.

All too often the global warming people are rather fanatical, and purveyors of a doomsday. Whereas such brilliant minds like Dyson Freeman remarked that the positives could be greater than the negative when all is said and done. But the fanatics find this unacceptable, not logically, but emotionally, IMO.

We need a breakthrough in new sources of cleaner energy. That is the only thing that will ever solve the co2 problem, IMO. Taxing it, turning that into another way for the elites to make money isn't the way. And we cannot crash economies, for those feed all people. No place for fanatics in addressing intelligently this problem of co2, and its growth. So that leaves out many of the global warming crowd that flock to it like flies to a cut water melon. They are in it for the wrong reason.

 

Climate change is real.
It's just not that noticable because we are in a "solar minimum". Imagine if we were in a "solar maximum" - temperatures would skyrocket.

If the so called elites care about the Earth, they shoud fight against consumerism and stop being such "GDP junkies". Introducindg one-two child policy in the Third world would also greatly help. Stop subsidizing Africa with cheap wheat. Stop subsidizing Arabs by buying their oil and feeding their large families. Ban Chinese plastic junk. Ban GMO. Stop global migration of people - a tree belongs to its roots. Reduce mindless trips and commutes by plane, truck and car. Stop "salad expresses". Abolish globalisation, promote localization. Promote local communities and local (renewable) energy production. Promote zero waste lifestyle....

 

I read this and see the long and short of it is, reduce population to lower pollution. The population in the world today is only supported by globalization. Localizing things actually tends to be more inefficient, especially in agriculture. Our modern world and all its amenities and rapid change are caused by basically all the things you listed. Now we COULD try and reduce pollution by figuring out better ways to have our container ships go across the ocean, rather than using diesel, or we could look at making better and cheaper carbon capture technology. But eliminating population? That is a non-starter.

PS: Climate Change is happening. When businesses are staring to put it into their business plans that it is happening, especially conservative ones like insurance companies, then you know its real.

 

We can do it the smart way or the hard way - trough war. And belive me, it would be a hell of war. So which way do you preffer?

My point was that everybody should suffice with what one's land provides. Something like spending only what you got in your wallet as opposed to "subsidized living" on credit. That woud put natural boundaries of peoples desires and populations. For example, if you have money only for one bread on the table, you would think twice before concieving your fourth child. No parent wants to starve their children.

You know how Nature works - when the population of a species becomes too large, they either starv to death or predators (killers) are coming.
Here is an intersting scientific experiment for you: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/

 

Brilliant post and thank you for it!

There are too many points against the Climate Change Sharia to cite much less argue. Suffice to say that if it were as factual as claimed by its religious followers, there would not be tens of thousands of PhDs and scientists and researchers publishing books and papers and videos condemning this vile and destructive religion.

The favorite tactic of Climate Change Sharia Zealots is to condemn the intellect of any and all who do not march in zealous lockstep with them, rather like the brownboots of Nazi Germany.

"Truth never lost ground through enquiry." - William Penn, Some Fruits of Solitude

 

You mean the three that are paid by the fossil fuel industry?

 

You are missing my point. It isn't practical to eliminate every single greenhouse gas emission, because we'd end up in the stone age again, which is actually worse than any of the impacts of climate change. It would be a disaster. For every greenhouse gas emission, its best to look at the cost and benefits of eliminating it, reducing it, replacing it with something greener, or doing nothing. So for the internet, the benefit of eliminating it is that the planet will be a tiny fraction of a degree cooler. The cost is that our society will slide backwards technologically by decades and technological and economic growth will be greatly stunted. So the warming the internet is causing is worth the things it provides. So doing nothing is a lot better than eliminating the internet. But an even better third alternative is to get our energy grid green to reduce the carbon footprint of the internet. That is the best option, not eliminating or rationing the internet.

 

Bwahahaha! So you think scientists only work for monetary gain? Since all the money is in proving the CO2 hypothesis from govt what does that say about them?

 

Typical. The "oh, you can't effect me" approach to liberal social policy. Cause when you point out just how impactful the things you folks like to consume actually are, you equivocate, and suggest, well, it isn't really that bad. Right? So, you suggest there's a reason for not doing anything instead. And yet, for all of those other things that you don't actually like, or better said, for those folks you just aren't willing to tolerate who might otherwise impact you, you're happy regulating them, and as you suggested last, "rationing" them. How egalitarian of you. The "me first" principle of liberal discourse. How about doing really meaningful things? You like the internet, but you don't like slavery, right? And yet, your usage of the internet is premised on a lot of folks working in slave like conditions to deliver the raw materials necessary for your enjoyment. Something to think about...

 

I think something is still not clicking here.

I'll try to reword it. As is the case in any society there are many variables/properties of that society that can be individually tuned. Some of these variables/properties work well together such that optimizing one tends to optimize the other. However, many have inverse relationships such that optimizing one diminishes another. The idea is that you want to weigh the cost/benefit of all of them in aggregate so that you are optimizing the combined effect of all of them together instead of myopically focusing on just one or two at the expense of the others.

The internet is a resource that has a huge benefit. This benefit, however, comes at the cost of warming the planet. But, the benefit outweighs the cost in this case. So rationing the internet would likely cause more harm than any long term gain in mitigated warming. In other words, tackling the problem of global warming must be dealt with in a reasonable and rational manner. You don't want the "fix" to be worse than the problem.

Is it better to ration the internet? Or is it better to ration fossil fuels to incentivize society into using energy sources that power the internet such that long term negative effects are reduced? Please don't read anything into me asking these questions. I'm genuinely only asking them to get you to think about the problem. If rationing fossil fuel is morally objectionable to you then feel to offer alternative ideas that reduce the harm we are causing to the planet.

 

I never said you can't effect me. My point is that your solution, turning off the internet, is worse than its problem of a tiny fraction of a degree of warming. I don't advocate doing nothing. I advocate instead shifting our taxes toward a carbon tax, which will reduce CO2 usage while not hurting the economy since we will lower other taxes. If we do have to restrict CO2, look for major sources like transportation which is 30%, industry which is 20%, and electricity which is 30%. And the best approach to solving these isn't to just reduce consumption which will significantly harm the economy. Its to replace them with green alternatives like public trans, biking, and green energy.

 

So the translation is.. you simply don't understand how the world works. You assume that your little bag of horrors is essential, so it's ok to create a portion of the harm you so diligently preach we must address through all means, including, as you've said above massively disrupting and transforming the world around you so you can still consume your precious internet. To the point of advising that it should be rationed. The obvious thought here, though, is that it's only rationed from others, and not you. Right? Because, you see the value, you use it valuably, etc.. blah blah. So, you're ok continuing to produce the harm, just as long as you, yourself, are not impacted. As noted before.

Here's my thought. I think about AGW, all the time. I wonder why it continues to infect the intellectual world because, fundamentally, the argument is fallacious. More, zero reproducible outcomes that demonstrate any actual harm has actually been attributable to what I see is a continuous natural cycle of climate change. I ask for things like desalination to water the desserts and instead of having folks wonder at the innovation and the actual demonstrable heat diminishment one would see from watering the dessert, we get angsty. Like it's a bad thing to play god. Unless its you of course, playing god.

The unfortunate truth here is that rationing fossil fuels isn't a climate solution. It's a social oppression. It limits personal liberty and mobility. It rations the very freedoms of which I assume you'll still claim for yourself. And yet not willing to extend to others.

One always has to stop, and wonder, why folks like you get so self important. Are you intent on creating chaos? Is your intent to inflict endless class war and social unrest on us so you can "feel" like you've protected us from a future yet to be determined unnamed climate injury? This seems, well, ludicrous. And frankly, ok, so we get rid of gas/diesel based cars. Who generates the electricity then that those cars/truck need? Or are you also willing to further ration mobility by also rationing them as well? And when it becomes clear that the production of those cars or trucks or devices you find useful all end up devastating pristine wilderness in the pursuit of the rare minerals necessary and the conflict that ownership of those minerals produces, does that just get a pass?

I can show you actual, real harm to folks who slave away so you get to enjoy your internet. I can show you real oppression, real terror in the lives of folks you ignore to enjoy your experience on the internet. What's that make you?

 

Ok great. So what do you think the solution is to the problems of long term environmental harm and long term economic risk (because fossil fuels are unsustainable)?