Who is right? The climate alarmists? Or the Climate deniers?

Statistically that's true. When I was a child, in the 70's, my mother was an anti-nuclear activist and France was indicated as a kind of hell.
If they were right, today France should be a radioactive desert ... Nope. France is the demonstration that nuclear energy is not dangerous at all and that you can manage it without terrible consequences.

 

You see, this is where the argument gets polluted.

I think you will find almost nobody who denies the first (bolded) part of that statement. The planet has been warming for well over 30,000 years. And nothing shows that that is reversing or even slowing down.

What we argue is the second (red), which ultimately does not matter.

Tell me, what are you doing yourself? Driving a greener vehicle? Trying to use less natural resources? Using less processed foods and doing most of the work yourself? Using mass transit?

Here is the thing, I reject the cause as being man, and probably still live a greener lifestyle than most others do. Most times I took a boat into San Francisco when I worked there, when I did not I rode my motorcycle. I tend to walk most places, even to the point that about once a month when I need my car the battery is dead because I have not driven enough. I make my own bread, my own cakes, about the most "processed food" I use is ramen.

One can not agree with the cause, and still try to live the best way they can. This is where and most of your kind completely fail. You try to lay guilt trips because we do not agree on the cause, and likely live nowhere near as green as many of us that do not believe it.

 

Which is a classic example of playing with the data.

That does not matter, as China emits over two times the amount than the US does.

Therefore, I would say they are the worst by far.

 

You make a lot of rash assumptions. But first I'm curious about your credentials as a weather expert. Why do you even have an opinion?

Most of your kind? Where the hell do you get off making an assumption like that. I have worked my entire life to not only minimize my own carbon footprint, which is actually negative, but also to help solve the core problems. That is why I became a scientist. And I know plenty of other academics who have likewise dedicated their lives to being a part of the solution.

How many years of your life have you dedicated to solving the problems? And have you considered that everyone playing Holiday Inn experts and thinking they know better than actual experts, is how we end up with idiots like trump in office?

 

I never claim to be a "weather expert". However, I have had a lifelong fascination with geology.

And as such, my frame of reference for the actual "condition" of the planet is substantially longer than most others. I recognize that it changes, sometimes in completely opposite directions in a relatively short amount of time. Geologically speaking.

However, here are some facts. We are still technically in an "ice age". That this is not the first ice age, but there have been many before this one. That polar ice caps are an aberration in the history of the planet.

That we have had CO2 levels many times higher than they are now, and it appears to have never had a direct impact on the climate of the planet.

That ice ages are actually the driest times that the planet has gone through, an interglacial is actually the wettest.

That most times in the past, there was never an ice cap over either the North or South Poles.

That fairly recently in geological terms, there were palm trees growing natively as far north as Central Alaska. A condition that does not exist today north of Central California.

I myself have collected fossils of palm trees in Idaho that date to the last interglacial. Which is well above the latitude that they can grow in today.



That I laugh whenever some "historian" talks about the wonder the very first humans must have felt when seeing the San Francisco Bay for the first time around 30 kya. Knowing damned well that at that time there was no "San Francisco Bay", and the coast of California was actually over 20 miles to the West.

You see, that is the difference. I am an actual believer in the "scientific method", and accept that the planet constantly changes. That it is as stupid to deny that as it is stupid to deny evolution.

What I see in most of the "Climate Alarmists" is the largest problem in science, in believing that what is the condition today (or 100 years ago, or 500 years ago) will be true tomorrow, or in 50 years, or in 100 years. That any extinction is a direct result of humans, even though creatures have been going extinct for billions of years. Just as they have gone extinct any time the climate of the planet changed.

No, I make absolutely no claim to be an "expert on the weather". However, I am one on the fact that the planet has changed countless times, as can be seen and proven in the rocks under our feet. And if not for "Global Warming", then most of New England would still be under a mile thick ice sheet, and Long Island would still be a glacial moraine.

Oh, and finally consider this. During the time of the American Revolution, Captain James Cook and Captain Bligh explored Alaska. And on the "Turnagain Arm", they both wrote of a glacier that reached the ocean. That of course is now known as Portage Glacier. But by the time the US bought Alaska a century later, the glacier no longer reached the ocean, but was several miles inland.

And notice, this was all still during the "Little Ice Age", well before "Man Made Global Warming" existed.

No, to be honest in this I ignore "weather", and look at the history of the planet. And I bet things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer. Even if every single human on the planet died tomorrow.

 

Oh, and I am also a huge believer in electric trains and other forms of mass transit. I honestly felt sick when the NIMBY in Los Angeles killed most of their electric train system, and instead replaced it with busses. The right of way was already there, they already had the tracks and trains in place. Instead, because of the whining of people who did not want "trains in their neighborhoods" (even though the trains and train tracks had been there since the turn of the century - long before the houses were ever there) their screaming caused LA METRO to rip up the tracks and put down concrete bus lanes.

I support "bullet trains", and think the "environmental roadblocks" should be removed because they would replace much of the transit done today by aircraft. That AMTRAK is a typical "Government boondoggle", and that the constant rise in rates (exceeding the cost of air travel) is a bad thing for the government.

That it is almost criminal that not even those in the government traveling on government orders and the government check are allowed to take AMTRAK. That the cost so far exceeds what the government would pay that such travel is forbidden.

And yes, that is not a joke. In 2015 I was on orders to go from California to Florida for training. I actually put in for a train ticket instead of a flight, and it was denied. A flight from Sacramento to Tampa Bay was a fraction of the cost of a train. Even though the government owns the trains!

If I had a say, that would change tomorrow. All transit unless other demands mandate it (time and location) would be by train. That if air travel was still required, that it be done not by commercial air companies, but by the MAC of the military. We have flights all the time by the military all around the country (and world) by the military. Why some government G-12 should take Continental from Washington to San Francisco when the USAF already has terminals in both places is just criminal.

 

The climate models continue to fail.
AR6 Model Failure Affirmed: ‘No Model Group Succeeds Reproducing Observed Surface Warming Patterns’
By Kenneth Richard on 25. April 2022

Share this...
A new study published in Geophysical Research Letters highlights the abysmal model performance manifested in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (AR6). The 38 CMIP6 general circulation models (GCMs) fail to adequately simulate even the most recent (1980-2021) warming patterns over 60 to 81% of the Earth’s surface.
Dr. Scafetta places particular emphasis on the poor performance of the highly uncertain estimates (somewhere between 1.83 and 5.67°C) of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and their data-model agreement relative to 1980-2021 global warming patterns.

The worst-performing ECS estimates are the ones projecting 3-4.5°C and 4.5-6°C warming in response to doubled CO2 concentrations (to 560 ppm) plus feedbacks, as the 1980-2021 temperature trends are nowhere close to aligning with these trajectories.

Instead, the projected global warming by 2050 (~2°C relative to 1750) associated with the lowest ECS estimates and implied by the warming observed over the last 40+ years is characterized as “unalarming” even with the most extreme greenhouse gas emissions (no mitigation efforts undertaken) growth rate.

In addition to the conclusion that “no model group succeeds reproducing observed surface warming patterns,” poor modeling of heat transfer physics, ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns, polar sea ice processes…is also evident in the latest IPCC report.

“Accurately reproducing regional temperature differences over the past 40+ years is beyond the capability of climate model simulations, and even fails for major ocean basins and continents.”

The fundamental modeling failures in simulating responses to sharply rising greenhouse gas emissions over the last 40+ years “calls into question model-based attribution of climate responses to anthropogenic forcing.”

Image Source: Scafetta, 2022

 

No, that's not the way it works.

What I am doing myself, what you are doing yourself, is irrelevant to the question of whether the warming is attributable to human activity.

The way we figure out difficult issues, such as the existence and causation of warming, is that scientists from around the world study the numerous areas of science that are involved in climatology.

 

I love by how the 1990s the predictions are nowhere near the reality and getting worse every year.

But they still scream at us that we have to believe their models.

 

And I say it is not. And I go off of geology. We are after all still in an ice age.

 

No, geology is not what we are doing about this issue.

And, you are assuming you are better than the many thousands of scientists working on all aspects of this problem.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

Animation of temperature records up to 2021:
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/video-global-warming-from-1880-to-2021/

 

Geology is the proof that we have been through a great many ice ages, and that in the interglacials, the temperature is much higher than it is today.

What, are you some kind of arch-conservative, that how things are is the way they will always be? And that nothing will ever change?

 

This is supposed to impress me?

You forget, I believe in "Global Warming". I believe that we would have it even if there was not a single human on the planet and the most advanced life form was the Canine and Dolphin. And that things are going to get a hell of a lot warmer.

To the degree that we will once again see palm trees in Alaska.

So what is the point of showing this? There is nobody in this thread that I have seen that is denying that things are getting warmer.

 

Climatologists are very aware of geologic time scales.

That is how YOU found out about that.

I don't know what you are trying to imply.

Surely you aren't suggesting that climatologists somehow forgot about what they told you concerning climate across geologic time. In fact, you can see that information on the web sites of NASA, NOAA, and other climate science organizations around the world.

 

Oh bullshit. I knew about it back in the 1970's, when I knew they were full of crap for predicting a "new ice age". You are trying to project here, and failing horribly.

I knew even then that those new ice age predictions were nonsense. And that as the amount of ice on the surface decreased, so did ablation. And with more sunlight striking and warming the surface instead of being reflected back this would accelerate. Me and my science teacher called them on their BS over 40 years ago, and I have seen nothing to contradict that since.

And your apparently claiming that the climatologists were teaching the geologists is completely full of crap.

 

Good for you for noting the "ice age" predictions were garbage.

But, other of the sites you have proposed are garbage, too.

Somehow the focus has to move toward that actual science.

My comment was about climate change over geologic time.

 

There are no "climate deniers".

 

Things have changed a little. Those right wingers who used to proclaim that Earth isn't warming have backed off, realizing they were wrong.

And, there is an increasing acceptance that humans are the major contributor to the rate of change we see today.

But, there are still PLENTY who demand that policy must ignore climate.

And, that is pure denial.

 

Got any examples of "climate deniers"?

 

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congress/

This article includes a link to an excel spreadsheet that contains the names of 150 Republican congressmen who have exhibited clear climate denialism.

For each of these congressman it contains the links to quotes indicating that denialism.

Of course, there is also Trump.

 

You do realize I mean 'AGW deniers' or 'ACC deniers', right?

See post #1296

 

IOW: There are no "climate deniers".

 

I posted a list of over 150 Republican congressmen who are deniers, along with the evidence.

Remember??

 

"Deniers" is just a propaganda word.