What if climate change is no hoax?

Okay.

Circular definitions are meaningless... The word is still essentially undefined at that point.

"Climate change is changes in ... climate"... Again, circular definitions do not work. Global Warming is also circularly defined... They are both meaningless buzzwords.

Correct.

Undefined buzzword... Circular definitions do not work... They yield void arguments...

No, I am revealing that your whole thread is a void argument, since it is based on a circularly defined term.

 

At the risk of repeating myself....
"Only 150 years ago, Europe came to the end of a 500 year cold snap so severe that thousands of peasants starved. The Little Ice Age changed the course of European history. Dutch canals froze over for months, shipping could not leave port, and glaciers in the Swiss Alps overwhelmed mountain villages. Five hundred years of much colder weather changed European agriculture, helped tip the balance of political power from the Mediterranean states to the north, and contributed to the social unrest that culminated in the French Revolution. The poor suffered most. They were least able to adjust to changing circumstances and most susceptible to disease and increased mortality. These five centuries of periodic economic and social crisis in a much less densely populated Europe are a haunting reminder of the drastic consequences of even a modest cooling of global temperatures.

The Little Ice Age was the most recent of three relatively long cold snaps during the past ten thousand years. The Younger Dryas that triggered agriculture in southwestern Asia was the most severe, for it brought glacial conditions back to Europe. Another cold snap in about 6200 B.C. lasted four centuries and caused widespread drought. The Little Ice Age had more impact on history than its two predecessors, for it descended on the world after centuries of unusually warm temperatures. One can reasonably call it the mother of all history-changing events.

El Niños have destroyed civilizations and caused unimaginable suffering for at least five thousand years. They lie at one end of the climate-change spectrum -- short, often severe events that roll across the tropical regions of the world and leave destruction in their path. By overthrowing powerful rulers and entire societies, such events have been as dramatic in their historical impact at the local level as the much longer climatic oscillations,measured in centuries, that have affected entire continents. All these fluctuations, whether El Niños or La Niñas, cycles of unusually stormy weather, or suddenly much colder temperatures, are part of a complex global climatic machine that includes oscillations on all scales. We know the machine is driven at leastpartially by complex interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans, and by deep-ocean circulations that transfer warm and cold water from the tropics to higher latitudes and back again. But many of the connections between such phenomena as El Niño and longer-term cycles such as the Little Ice Age remain a complete mystery.

This chapter changes climatic gears and tells the story of four centuries of unusually cold weather that altered the course of European history. The Little Ice Age operated on a different scale from a short-lived El Niño; it danced to a different climaticdrummer than the protean Christmas Child. We do not know what caused this, or earlier, cold snaps, beyond a suspicion that deep-ocean circulations and arctic downwelling were important parts of the climatic equation. We know more about the causes of El Niños than we do about the much longer Little Ice Age."

The Little Ice Age was not a monolithic deep freeze, but aperiod of constant, and sometimes remarkable, climatic shifts between torrid summers and subzero winters."

http://williamcalvin.com/readings/Fagan 1999 chapter on LIA.htm

 

So, you're saying you don't know what "climate" is. Thanks for falling into my web! And since you don't know what climate is, it logically follows that you are unable to discuss climate change with understanding.

BTW:
"Climate - The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/climate

Meanwhile, you haven't been doing your ethical job in this "debate" because you didn't investigate the link I posted for you. The second entry in that linked list was a NASA website. It's FIRST LINE says "The climate of a region or city is its typical or average weather" and then goes on to discuss the subject, "What are Climate and Climate Change?"
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-climate-change-58.html

And the 4th entry in the list is an Ecolife website presenting "Definition of Climate Change". And the first line of that page says "Climate change is the long-term shift in weather patterns in a specific region or globally".
http://www.ecolife.com/define/climate-change.html

So your "brilliant" counter-argument isn't. And you've shown you haven't discussed this "in good faith" it would seem. Can you give me a good reason why I should waste my time reading any more of your replies?

 

Yup. Over a 500-year period. And during that time there were 4 pretty major volcanic eruptions spewing ash into the air. Heck, just one eruption in 1815, -Mount Tambora, -produced "the year without a summer".

Those events had causes that could be identified if it happened today, but the changes we're seeing have no such natural causes. Intense and extensive scientific study has zeroed-in on CO2 increases, just as Exxon-Mobil predicted in 1977.

 

You've completely lost context at this point... I've already defined what climate is...

Pretty much... Climate is weather over a long period of time.

I typically ignore links that people provide, as it is typically people using them as a false authority fallacy or people not being able to form their own arguments. I don't waste my time with that kinda stuff.

Neither NASA nor ecolife.com are science... Ignored on sight.

You don't have to respond to my posts if you don't want to... no person or thing is compelling you to respond to my posts.

 

So your approach is what.... --to state personal opinions and substantiate nothing? No wonder this has been such a total waste of time. But no more. Post your reply but you are now on "ignore".

 

Nope... My approach is to appeal to science itself, rather than to some consensus or university course or degree or organization or website.

Nope. Rather, you have refused to discuss the actual theories of science with me...

Okay.

 

That has little to do with our current climate change.

 

You need to read the link again. Scientist have no idea what caused al those very rapid climate changes.

 

It proves climate changes fast and often which is science true believers deny

 

I suppose I am not a "True Believer" then.

 

What "current climate change"? Why is it a catastrophic issue?

 

See? You have to pretend it was volcanoes, when there were three extended periods of low solar activity that corresponded to the Little Ice Age.

Except the multi-millennial high in solar activity in the 20th century...

Because climate "scientists" are paid to exclude long-term solar activity cycles from their "study."

 

See? You have to pretend it was solar minimum that cause it when it was actually a number of influences including volcanoes, which played a major role. Your right wing handlers told you what their loyalists should say.

Right. It's a conspiracy! Oooooooooooo!

 

So which climate fact do you deny: that the earth gets its warmth from the sun, or that the sun is a variable star?

Nope. Not possible. Volcanoes were not particularly more active during the LIA than during warm periods, and their effects wash out of the atmosphere in a few years. By far the largest one, Tambora in 1815, came near the end of the LIA and therefore could not possibly have contributed significantly to it. It is therefore extremely unlikely that volcanoes could have been a major contributor to the LIA.

You obviously haven't read much of what I have written in political and economic threads.

Yep. The climategate emails already proved that. It's just not clear exactly who the conspirators are, and why they are doing it.

 

Well, the first possible contributor to the causes was volcanic....

Therefore, any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:

• 1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow; cold period possibly triggered or enhanced by the massive eruption of the Samalas volcano in 1257.
• 1275 to 1300 based on the radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation
• 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
• 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315–1317
• 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion
• 1650 for the first climatic minimum.

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age


And it happened gradually enough that scientists are unsure about when to say it began, -anywhere from 1250 to 1650!
And it ended "in the latter half of the 19th century or early in the 20th century".
This is unlike the far more rapid changes we're seeing today as can be seen in this graph...


"Among the possible reasons given for the "Little Ice Age" are low solar activity and increased volcanism."
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/04_3.shtml

Research shows that the impact of temperature change during the Little Ice Age was much smaller than today’s effects of climate change. "A study in the Astronomy & Geophysics journal, published by the Royal Astronomical Society, suggests that the temperature change between the 16th and 19th centuries was smaller than that seen in the last half century or so as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions in response to human fossil fuel burning."
"And they found that, through the 16th to 19th centuries, average temperatures may have fallen by 0.5 °C. The comparable fall during the Ice Age that ended 12,000 years ago was about 8°C."

“This study provides little solace for the future, as we face the challenge of global warming,” Professor Lockwood says.

“Solar activity appears to be declining at present, but any cooling effect that results will be more than offset by the effect of rising carbon dioxide emissions, and provides us with no excuse for inaction.” – Climate News Network
https://climatenewsnetwork.net/climate-makes-little-ice-age-puny/

 

We can look to history. Warm periods have been great for civilization. Cold periods have been devastating.

Global cooling would devastate the world's granary crops.

 

Would you propose that infinite warming would be infinitely good?
Of course not.... so clearly there would be some point where warming would be bad

Would you propose that raising food is the only metric by which to judge the impact of warming?
I hope not, but will be willing to debate this if you will clearly advocate that

Would you propose that the impact of warming will be equally good at every place on earth?
Again i doubt that, but will be willing to debate that point should you advocate that

Are you saying that someone is advocating global cooling as a good? If so please provide that link

Are you saying that you fully understand the net impacts of increased co2 such that you can guarantee the there will be a net benefit for the foreseeable future? If so please clearly state that



——
My position is that we are performing a radical experiment on our environment, that we are nearly totally ignorant about the extended impacts of this experiment, that the impacts will likely be unevenly geographically distributed, that the impacts will be most severe for our children and for people living in other countries, that the impacts will extend beyond atmospheric warming...ie ice melt and ocean acidification

 

If you restrict "the world" to "northern europe", that's true.

However, as the world is much larger, the statement is absurd.

 

Meanwhile in Guadalajara, the capital of Jalisco state in western Mexico.

5 ft of hail.

 

Were these some normal periodic variation of the type that we are aware of and can track today?
For instance, if such phenomena were happening today, would we be aware of what is gong on....
Because, if we could know about these cycles we should be able to make sense of climatic changes.

Or, possibly you are claiming that the changes were chaotic in nature and therefore are inherently impossible to understand or even measure? , ,

As I understand it, there are no solar changes that correspond to observed changes in the climate
Do you have a link?

This seems ludicrous for several obvious reasons
First and foremost.... scientists from all the nations around the world are reaching similar conclusions. How is it that scientists in all of these very different countries with independent methods of funding come to similar conclusions?

Countries like india and china have independently concluded that this is a problem... despite the fact that their best economic interest would be if there were no problem

And, in fact, scientists have constantly been raising alarms about this issue since 1860.... well before there was any conceivable funding mechanism to encourage them to do so

And further... the simple reality is that this research continued to emerge during the pro oil presidency of george bush.... who certainly was highly motivated to stop inappropriate climate change. payoffs to researchers

 

No.

Yes.

We can. It's the sun, stupid.

In no sense are chaotic cycles impossible to understand or measure. Only difficult.

Because you don't understand it.

Here's one to start:

https://www.cfact.org/2019/05/06/the-sun-also-warms-the-sun-climate-connection/

There are tons more.

"Whenever I see something that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, I know there must be a damn good reason for it." -- Peter de Vries

Most, though, are reaching the conclusion that anti-CO2 hysteria is overblown, unscientific nonsense.

There is an well-funded agenda that makes you think scientists are all on board with anti-CO2 hysteria when they are definitely not.

Wrong. Their best economic interests are served if OTHER countries think there is a problem, and reduce their use of fossil fuels, reducing the PRICE they have to pay for them.

And global cooling, and flooding, and drought....

Was he? Who benefits most from a high oil price? Oil exporters like Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Libya, that's who. Governments hostile to the interests of the USA. Reducing the price of oil by reducing demand would starve those hostile governments of hundreds of billions of dollars. Money well spent.

 

Wrong.

So effect precedes cause???

Wrong. The Viking settlements in Greenland were gone by the 15th century.

The absurd and dishonest hockey stick graph..

No it doesn't.

Garbage.

Which has nothing to do with modern warming, modest as it is.
<blather mercifully snipped>

 

Are you talking about variation in solar forcing due to sunspots?

What are the cycles of these sunspots. And how do they map on to observed climate change?

And in the best case for your argument..... one would think that if solar irradiance varies cyclically.... which it does.... at some point there would be some cooling

Please present information on how you think the sun has impacted the energy balance of the earth over the last 40 years

 

Of course not. Sunspots are just a proxy for solar activity, not the factor that affects climate. The effect on climate could be due to a combination of variations in irradiance, solar wind, magnetic activity, etc. The scientific research is not aided by fraudulent retroactive alteration of temperature data.

The chaotic ~11- and 22-year cycles are well known. The century- to millennium-scale cycles that produced the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Modern Warming are not, and appear to be even less regular.

Sunspot activity is directly related to -- though definitely not the cause of -- terrestrial temperature changes.

Irradiance is not the only or probably even the strongest effect. And there is definitely cooling. We have been cooling since at least 2016.

40 years is not an informative interval because the relevant variation is century- to millennial-scale. Until sunspot activity weakened about 15 years ago, the sun had shown nearly 100y of the highest sustained activity in several millennia. That sustained high 20th century sunspot activity occurred at the same time the earth warmed. Now that it appears to be over, the earth is no longer warming.