Earth warming more quickly than thought, new climate models show

By 2100, average temperatures could rise 6.5 to 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue una
By 2100, average temperatures could rise 6.5 to 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed

Greenhouse gases thrust into the atmosphere mainly by burning fossil fuels are warming Earth's surface more quickly than previously understood, according to new climate models set to replace those used in current UN projections, scientists said Tuesday.

By 2100, average temperatures could rise 7.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels if carbon emissions continue unabated, separate models from two leading research centres in France showed.

That is up to two degrees higher than the equivalent scenario in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's (IPCC) 2014 benchmark 5th Assessment Report.

The new calculations also suggest that the Paris Agreement goals of capping global warming at "well below" two degrees, and 1.5C if possible, will be challenging at best, the scientists said.

"With our two models, we see that the scenario known as SSP1 2.6—which normally allows us to stay under 2C—doesn't quite get us there," Olivier Boucher, head of the Institute Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Modelling Centre in Paris, told AFP.

With only one degree Celsius of warming so far, the world is coping with increasingly deadly heat waves, droughts, floods and tropical cyclones made more destructive by rising seas.

A new generation of 30-odd climate models known collectively as CMIP6—including the two unveiled Tuesday—will underpin the IPCC's next major report in 2021.

Anomalies in world temperatures
Variations in temperature by year compared to the 20th century average.

"CMIP6 clearly includes the latest modelling improvements," even as important uncertainties remain, Joeri Rogelj, an associate professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC lead author, told AFP.

These include increased supercomputing power and sharper representations of weather systems, natural and man-made particles, and how clouds evolve in a warming world.

"We have better models now," said Boucher. "They have better resolution, and they represent current climate trends more accurately."

'Tipping points'

A core finding of the new models is that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will warm Earth's surface more—and more easily—than earlier calculations had suggested.

If confirmed, this higher "equilibrium climate sensitivity", or ECS, means humanity's carbon budget—our total emissions allowance—is likely to shrink.

The fight against global warming continues to face strong political headwinds and institutional inertia despite a rapid crescend
The fight against global warming continues to face strong political headwinds and institutional inertia despite a rapid crescendo of public awareness and concern

The French models are the first to be released.

"The French modelling groups are to be congratulated for being the first to complete their simulations," said Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds.

But other models developed independently have come to the same unsettling conclusion, Boucher confirmed.

"The most respected ones—from the United States, and Britain's Met Office—also show a higher ECS" than the previous generation of models, he said.

This is bad news for the fight against global warming, which continues to face strong political headwinds and institutional inertia despite a rapid crescendo of public awareness and concern.

"A higher ECS means a greater likelihood of reaching higher levels of global warming, even with deeper emissions cuts," Boucher and two British scientists—Stephen Belcher from the UK Met Office and Rowan Sutton from the UK National Centre for Atmospheric Science—wrote in a blog earlier this year, tiptoeing around the implications of the new models.

The 2014 basket of climate models show Earth warming on current trends an additional 3C by 2100, and at least 2C even if nationa
The 2014 basket of climate models show Earth warming on current trends an additional 3C by 2100, and at least 2C even if national carbon cutting pledges are all met

"Higher warming would allow less time to adapt and mean a greater likelihood of passing climate 'tipping points' such as thawing of permafrost, which would further accelerate warming."

A third to 99 percent of top-layer permafrost could melt by 2100 if carbon pollution is not abated, releasing billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the air, according to a draft IPCC special report on oceans and Earth's frozen zones obtained by AFP.

"Unfortunately, our global failure to implement meaningful action on climate change over recent decades has put us in a situation where what we need to do to keep warming to safe levels is extremely simple," said Rogelj.

"Global greenhouse gas emissions need to decline today rather than tomorrow, and global CO2 emissions should be brought to net zero."

The 2014 basket of climate models show Earth warming on current trends an additional 3C by 2100, and at least 2C even if national carbon cutting pledges are all met.

The two French climate models, including one from France's National Centre for Meteorological Research (CNRM), were unveiled at a press conference in Paris.


Explore further

2-metre sea level rise 'plausible' by 2100: study

© 2019 AFP

Citation: Earth warming more quickly than thought, new climate models show (2019, September 17) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-earth-quickly-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
9588 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dug
Sep 17, 2019
Interesting. Search for "Climate models show earth warming slower than predicted." Its the climate model voting race.

Sep 17, 2019
Dug, please refer me to a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Impact F. > 3) paper that shows earth warming is slower than predicted, then I will look into it.

Prejudice without evidence is a pure propaganda; I urge people to avoid fake news online papers, blogs, tweets, and social platforms. These are all pseudo-scientific prejudices, nothing more.

Sep 17, 2019
Interesting. Search for "Climate models show earth warming slower than predicted." Its the climate model voting race.

If you actually do that, the results you get show that climate models have done well so far, but that the earth is indeed warming faster than predicted (e.g., https://www.scien...edicted/ ). So, as you pointed out, the data seems to agree with the latest climate models and that the earth is warming faster than the earlier models predicted. I'm not sure I accept the most extreme models (yet), but it certainly seems that we've been underestimating, to some degree, how fast the earth will warm.

Sep 18, 2019
The claim that models don't work is nonsense. No, they aren't perfect, but they have done a much better job than "skeptics" claim.
.
This misleading claim is usually based on comparing observed temperatures with the highest emissions scenario in the models, and ignoring the other scenarios of moderately reduced and dramatically reduced CO2 emissions in this century.

The models can accurately reproduce global temperature from 1900 to the present. Models are put through hindcasting to test and improve them.
--------------

"How reliable are climate models?"

http://www.skepti...iate.htm
--------

Sep 18, 2019
"Are the models, in fact, untestable? Are they unable to make valid predictions? Let's review the record.

" Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum
sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with
the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right."

Barton Paul Levenson - climate scientist



Sep 18, 2019
Try to look at it this way, folks. If it isn't possible to have a good balance between a cold and hot climate, wouldn't it be preferable for humanity, animals and plants/trees to have it a bit hotter than usual, rather than the Earth going into a deep freeze where no food can be grown in open fields; sources of meat on the hoof are frozen where they stand; and the days are dark, cloudy, deep snow/ice and icy cold even in the summer? No more fishing on boats wearing shorts and short sleeves; no more laying around on the beach and swimming; no more open air BBQ cookouts; no more sitting in the bleachers during a good rugby match, etc etc.
If you believe that Homo Sapiens originated in Africa - in the jungle - then you must know that Africa is hot. Isn't that why African natives barely wore anything before those White Europeans told them to put something on? In hot weather you can go 'native' and forego your lovely clothes, suits and high heels. Just go around in short shorts.

Sep 18, 2019
Are the Models Untestable?

"They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.

The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase."
------

Barton Paul Levenson - climate scientist

Sep 18, 2019
AGW Cult - Look Chicken Littles, our lies haven't scared the little children enough, so we must have a bigger lie.

Chicken Littles (hiding in their cesspool of ignorance) - See it's all true, the sky is falling even faster.

Sep 18, 2019
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

We are not talking about a wee bit warmer world. We are talking about a world as much warmer than the late 19th century, as today's global temperature is higher than 20,000-25,000 years ago, when ice sheets were at maximum extent, just before the last glacial period started ending. The ending took 11,000 years to warm by about 5 C, peaking. We are threatening to do that over a couple of centuries.
It's the speed of this warming that is so dangerous. A different world, except instead of a change over 11,000 years, over a few 100 years.

The world is warming at least 10 times faster than when it came out of the last ice age. It took 11,000 years to warm by 5 C. That averages 2,200 years for each 1 C warming.
Global average temperature has increased by 1 C in the last 138 years. Do the simple arithmetic. I got 16 times faster now.


Sep 18, 2019
There is NO WAY that humans are going to stop using petrol in their car engines when they have someplace to go; no way they will stop flying in airplanes, riding in buses, trains, etc. No way are humans going to stop using the a/c in the summer and heat their home in winter; they will continue to make their hot water and keep their food cold in their refrigerator/freezers. This is human nature to want to be comfortable. If you really believe that humans would willingly give up their comforts just because YOU want them to - then think again. Until new technology allows humans to keep their comfort without the use of fossil fuels, there is NO WAY that they will stop - and you can't make them stop. And if you tell them to not burn logs in winter because it is producing GHG, they just might do something hurtful to you.
So I suggest that if you don't like the use of fossil fuels, then don't drive your car unless your car runs ONLY on sunshine. And don't cook your food in a log fire.

Sep 18, 2019
" If you really believe that humans would willingly give up their comforts just because YOU want them to"

No. just because - the alternative is most likely the end of civilization and mass extinction of species.
And your idea of giving up comforts is greatly exaggerated.

Sep 18, 2019
One thing about humans - they adapt well to changes - except for the very old and very young. Those have to be protected. But the average teenager as well as up to the 30s and 40s are really quite adaptable to changes in weather/climate as long as they have a good supply of clean water.
And there are bicycles. Young people are great with bikes. Older people too. But for those who can't wear anything but suits and ties - too bad. And for those who are terribly concerned about what other people think - that's another too bad.
But normal humans would have no particular qualm about wearing comfortable clothing in hot climates. it is just the sticklers for conformity that would be bothered.
Personally, I would be more afraid if the climate was becoming a permanent winter. But even with that, humans could adapt to it.

Sep 18, 2019
Mass extinction of species has happened many times before, and is still happening. There is really nothing new under the Sun. Civilisations come and go and new ones pop up. It seems to happen in cycles. But the agrarian communities always remain.

Sep 18, 2019
As long as the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun or move closer to it, or a solar flare comes along, what are you so afraid of? In the age of the dinosaurs it was much hotter than it is now, and the little mammals (your ancestors) didn't mind the heat at all. And during ice ages, they burrowed underground.

Sep 18, 2019
Another thing I want to mention - global temperatures - this is false. Every hemisphere, latitude, longitude are different in temperature ranges. You can't just take a temp from here, and a temp from there, and another from Africa, and another from Russia, and add them all up to get a "mean" temperature. That is totally ridiculous and nutty. Temps and weather are different everywhere. You certainly can't conflate the temperature in the Sahara with that of Toronto, Canada. And yet, that is basically what is being done.

Sep 18, 2019
AGW Cult - Look Chicken Littles, our lies haven't scared the little children enough, so we must have a bigger lie.

Chicken Littles (hiding in their cesspool of ignorance) - See it's all true, the sky is falling even faster.


In the News currently:
Children demonstrating against 'climate change' after being allowed to by school administrators, when THEY SHOULD BE IN SCHOOL LEARNING STEM and how to spell in English.
One of the signs a child was carrying was, "I WANT TO GROW UP".
And I knew that the AGW propaganda had worked on that child's mind. She was not the only one.
Next, they will have children demonstrating against the US Second Amendment to confiscate all guns from American citizens. The Socialists are now using children that they have indoctrinated in the US public school system.
I know where this is going. I have seen it all before.

Sep 18, 2019
As long as the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun or move closer to it, or a solar flare comes along, what are you so afraid of? In the age of the dinosaurs it was much hotter than it is now, and the little mammals (your ancestors) didn't mind the heat at all. And during ice ages, they burrowed underground.

I'm afraid of the heat. I hate hot summers of Finland already and they are not even that hot compared to other places. I hate diseases which are coming to Finland because of hotter climate and all kind of bugs that would come more common here with more heat.

You may love heat and all the extreme stuff coming with heating planet but I sure don't.

Sep 18, 2019
Gonna try to scare @frflyer with your "mind reading alien" schtick, @Scientology_Sperm_Unit?

Bet it doesn't work.

Sep 18, 2019
The trouble with models is that you can never account for all factors, and so the longer you try to predict into the future, the more inaccurate the modelling becomes - until it loses any semblance to observation. That is just the unavoidable nature of modelling.

My issue is not so much with the modelling, but with the conclusions that people arrive at from those models.

All you can see from the modelling is peaks, troughs, trends & correlations - but what you CAN'T see is causation.

You can't look at ANY model and definitively say that CO2 "causes" climate change. You just can't. All you can do is argue that "there appears to be some correlation."

Of course, anyone who has been to the Spurious Correlations website will know that you can find correlations all over the place (eg. Ice cream purchases to shark attacks) - But finding actual causation is MUCH rarer & MORE difficult indeed.

Sep 18, 2019
Causation is well defined. We've known increasing CO2 concentration increases heat retention since the 19th century.

You're lying and denying again, @Kordane.

Sep 18, 2019
@seu - well the technology does exist obviously, just the political and the timidity of overprevileged westerners prevents its timely rollout.

Sep 18, 2019
Causation is well defined. We've known increasing CO2 concentration increases heat retention since the 19th century


In a jar in a lab, maybe, but not when applied to a system as complex as the planet Earth.

What happens in a jar in a lab is not automatically what happens when on the scale of an entire planet, particularly a planet with life on it.

So when you say causation is "well defined", you must add a bunch of qualifiers to that statement, because otherwise you're being disingenuous.

Causation between CO2 and temperature, for the planet Earth, is not "well defined" at all. You're actually lying to people if you claim that it is.

Sep 18, 2019
GLOBAL WARMING OF THIS JUNGLE OF GENETIC DIVERSITY Homo Sapiens originated in Africa

@SEU
If you believe that Homo Sapiens originated in Africa - in the jungle - then you must know that Africa is hot

Fore in these jungles
in these tropics
in these forests
where the heat is always on
there is diversity most diverse
fore it is said
that out of these sweltering forests
and jungles
these great apes and chimpanzees once roamed
for in this dim and distant past
in these Amazon torrents and rivers
that ones meandered these forests
before desertification by forests fires took hold
these great apes
learnt how to walk
with their heads and precious cargoes
held above these raging torrents
for this his how these great apes learnt how to walk upright
on two feet
that over time
these apes
bone hip and foot structure
developed to walk
just as Homo Sapiens walks today
that these great apes lost their fur
that for all the world
look
like
Homo Sapiens, looks like today, millions of years later

Sep 18, 2019
Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, produced this slide in a lecture - https://imgur.com/a/VBM3Shv - showing the lack of correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperatures when considering it on the longest time scale we have evidence for. Where is the correlation on this graph? I don't see it.

Sep 18, 2019
...when THEY SHOULD BE IN SCHOOL LEARNING STEM and how to spell in English.
says the dude who spells it "phorum"

Not sure if the first amendment covers a troll shouting, "It's just a lot of smoke!" in a crowded theater that's smoldering away...

Sep 18, 2019
THIS BARBECUE SUMMER
The most respected ones
The Britain's Met Office

The campers paddling
between flooded tents didn't need to be told
Neither did the families huddling for shelter beside deserted beaches.

But yesterday the weathermen officially admitted
That their prediction of a 'barbecue summer'
Had been hopelessly wrong

this Global warming Prediction
need we say more
well we need

for this forecast
made Michael Fish
The most famous weather forecaster

in this history of weather forecasters
considering these
torrential barbecue down pours made poor Michael Fish

the most celebrated weather men
in British weather forecasters
how appropriate, fish in rivers of rain

https://www.daily...out.html

Sep 18, 2019
What happens in a jar in a lab is not automatically what happens when on the scale of an entire planet, particularly a planet with life on it.
This is a brain dead argument; the CO2 doesn't know if it's in a jar or not. Are you claiming it has a different spectrum in the lab than in the air? Seriously?

Sep 18, 2019
@Da Schneib
Are you claiming it has a different spectrum in the lab than in the air? Seriously?


I'll make it very simple for you: It's apples and oranges.

A jar of CO2 in a lab is not an accurate representation of the planet Earth. That might sound controversial, insane, denialist and unbelievable to you - But it's not to me, nor to most people.

Sep 18, 2019
A jar of CO2 in a lab is not an accurate representation of the planet Earth.
You're pretending that it's not an accurate representation of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a very different thing from your claim it is or ever supposed to be "an accurate representation of the planet Earth."

Shifting the goalposts right in the middle of your argument. Now stop lying.

Sep 18, 2019
@Da Schneib
You're pretending that it's not an accurate representation of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is a very different thing from your claim it is or ever supposed to be "an accurate representation of the planet Earth."


I've been clear that a jar of CO2 in the lab is not an accurate representation of the planet Earth, owing to the difference in scale & factors involved.

It's actually rather disingenuous of you to speak of the atmosphere, in this context, as if it can exist independently of the planet Earth.

Sep 18, 2019
It has nothing to do with an "accurate representation of the planet Earth" and it doesn't have to be.

You're trying to double down on the goalpost shift, and it's an obvious logical fallacy. Speaking of disingenuousness, not to mention sheer dishonesty.

Sep 18, 2019
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat retained. True or false?

If false, where does the heat go?

And if you're all agnostic and stuff, how come you're against admitting that CO2 traps heat?

Sep 18, 2019
It has nothing to do with an "accurate representation of the planet Earth" and it doesn't have to be. You're trying to double down on the goalpost shift, and it's an obvious logical fallacy


I find it amusing how you alleged I shifted the goal posts from "planet Earth" to the "atmosphere", when you were the first one to even mention the word "atmosphere". An act of projection, on your part, I would argue. Shift your own goal posts, then pin it onto me. Nice try though.

And yes, it DOES have to be an accurate representation of planet Earth, because otherwise it will be inaccurate, particularly the further into the future you try to make predictions (much like weather forecasts).

Furthermore, you may be missing crucially important factors in explaining WHY the climate changes in the first place. Warming, which you ascribe to CO2, may in large or some part be warming that actually comes from factors that you have ignored or that you aren't even aware of.

Sep 18, 2019
More CO2, same heat

@DaSchneib
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat retained. True or false?
If false, where does the heat go?
And if you're all agnostic and stuff, how come you're against admitting that CO2 traps heat?

More CO2
Does not begat more heat
For the heat output of the sun is unaltered
The heat output of fossil fuel is unaltered
From a starting point of 0.04% CO2
What is the daily increase of CO2?
A millionth of 1%, a trillionth of 1%
The daily increase of CO2, does not come into, these heat retention calculations, one iota!
Which comes to this starting point, this 0.04% CO2?
Of this total output of solar and fossil fuelled heat

What percentage
Of this heat
Is retained by this 0.04% CO2
On these pre Brexit chilly nights

Sep 18, 2019
@Da Schneib
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat retained. True or false?


I don't know, nor do you, and nor does anyone else for that matter, because there are simply too many factors (known and unknown) involved to make any kind of definitive statement about that.

Sep 18, 2019
@Kordane.
Warming, which you ascribe to CO2, may in large or some part be warming that actually comes from factors..
I refuted your above 'gambits' in a previous thread/discussion, mate. The CO2 experiments were not just "in a lab/jar"; they were long ago taken into the field and changing the variables involved to see what happens. The tests elucidated what happens to crop species, trees, grasses, soil biology, water/nutrient pathways in the ground/plants; as well as noting any warming due to 'greenhouse effect' from increasing CO2. The Earth system has various inputs of energy from within/without, and its atmospheric constituents determine applicable Temp range. Models/understandings are the result of applying the same sort of geo-science/experiments/observations that elucidated Plate Tectonics/Continental Drift/Volcanism, Hydrologic/Nutrient cycles, Ozone 'hole'. Oh, and FYI, in 1990 our ABC TV (Australia) reported on predictions made by Models back then: they were spot on! :)

Sep 18, 2019
On these pre Brexit chilly nights

For, DaSchneib
The EU messages are out
On these Main Arteries
Getting these heavy haulage
Accustomed to this Halloween
When these witches will be circling
At this witching hour of this Brexit

For this witching hour, is going to be freezing point, or there about
This 0.04% CO2, these witching spells, nor these warlock spells, will not retain this heat, DaSchneib

Sep 18, 2019
@RealityCheck
The CO2 experiments were not just "in a lab/jar"; they were long ago taken into the field and changing the variables involved to see what happens


I remember your post, but I would still argue that taking the jar "into the field" & "changing variables" will still inevitably suffer from the exact same problem as if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab - namely that it will not accurately represent the planet Earth, because of the vast difference in scale and (known + unknown) factors involved. This is unavoidable, no matter the location of the jar or the variables you alter in said jar.

Sep 18, 2019
@S_E_U.

Mate, get real. You can always put on warmer clothes when cold; but you can only take off clothes until you're naked..and still hot when experiencing extreme temps. At which point the only way to cool down in your home is by air-conditioning which currently uses up even more fossil-sourced electricity and so starting a vicious cycle of producing more CO2, more global warming, more coal/oil burning and so on. IN any case, the current warming trend is developing so rapidly compared to ancient geologic ages that we won't have time/money enough to adapt or relocate (as for relocation, the enormous global population now has nowhere to relocate TO without some serious consequences/costs and further damage to our Environment). Moreover, the past extinctions were NOT US HUMANS, but animals/plants that just died and/or evolved in time due to the then much slower geologic/climate changes. Then of course there's the havoc which diseases/pests/storms etc a warmer climate will unleash!

Sep 18, 2019
RealityCheck Gambits of CO2 on the Hop

The CO2 experiments
were not just
in a lab
jar
they were long ago
taken into the field
and changing
the variables involved to see what happens
The tests elucidated what happens
to crop species
trees, grasses
soil biology
water
nutrient
pathways in the ground
plants
as well as noting any warming
due to
greenhouse effect
from increasing CO2
The Earth system has various inputs of energy
from within
without
and its atmospheric constituents
determine applicable Temp range
Models
understandings are the result
of applying the same sort
of geo-science/experiments
observations that elucidated Plate Tectonics
Continental Drift
Volcanism
Hydrologic
Nutrient cycles
Ozone hole
Oh
and FY
in 1990 our ABC TV
Australia
reported on predictions
made by Models back then
They were spot on

Sep 18, 2019
@Kordane.
I remember your post, but I would still argue that taking the jar "into the field" & "changing variables" will still inevitably suffer from the exact same problem as if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab - namely that it will not accurately represent the planet Earth, because of the vast difference in scale and (known + unknown) factors involved. This is unavoidable, no matter the location of the jar or the variables you alter in said jar.
You still seem unfamiliar with the actual experimental methods/controls employed. Large volumes of air over large sections of ground/plant-life were enclosed in large thin/clear plastic 'housing'. Observations were made over years WITHOUT any further changes. The resulting temps/nutrient/water cycling rates etc were measured to give a BASELINE. THEN CO2 was introduced at various times to varying degrees to mimic stages of increased CO2 in atmosphere. THEN results COMPARED to BASELINE for temp/nutrition etc. Over MANY experiments. :)

Sep 18, 2019
RealityCheck in times long past

These CO2 experiments
were not just in a lab or jar
they were long ago

taken into the field
fore ever changing the variables involved
to see what happens in the wild

global warming in a jar
of experiments
these years long past

of experiments
where these variables were fiddled
to arrive at the desired outcome

not our words
not environmentalists word
but RealityCheck's words

of RealityCheck
always hither and dither
always on this hop

RealityCheck, like Macavity
almost quiet a warmest
But never quiet a warmest at all

Sep 18, 2019
Just a jar of CO2 in a lab: by RealityCheck

Taking the jar
into the field
&
changing variables
will still inevitably suffer
from the exact same problem
as if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab
namely that it will not accurately
represent the planet Earth
because of the vast difference
in scale
and
known + unknown
factors involved
this is unavoidable
no matter the location
of the jar
or the variables you alter
In said jar

Just a jar of CO2 in a lab: by RealityCheck

Sep 18, 2019
Just a jar
of CO2
In a lab

RealityCheck, like Macavity
almost quiet a warmest
But never quiet a warmest at all

Sep 18, 2019
@granville583762.
where these variables were fiddled
to arrive at the desired outcome

not our words
not environmentalists word
but RealityCheck's words
I'm very disappointed in you, mate; I thought you had some integrity, but I was mistaken, apparently. Your above characterisation is totally contrary to what the experimental methods/controls are about. The variables were changed to see what WOULD happen. At NO stage was the 'desire' of the experimenter involved or required. It was just observations of changed circumstances and their consequences...whatever those consequences may turn out to be. They turned out to be more warming with increasing CO2. Period. Please do not again make such blatantly misleading claims about me or the long understood PRINCIPLE of objective experimental methods/controls etc techniques which form part of the overarching OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

ps: Or did you just innocently misread/misunderstand what I wrote? If so, please correct it. :)

Sep 18, 2019
@RealityCheck
Large volumes of air over large sections of ground/plant-life were enclosed in large thin/clear plastic 'housing'. Observations were made over years WITHOUT any further changes. The resulting temps/nutrient/water cycling rates etc were measured to give a BASELINE. THEN CO2 was introduced at various times to varying degrees to mimic stages of increased CO2 in atmosphere


Even if it's a "large thin/clear plastic housing", it will STILL inevitably suffer from the exact same problem as if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab - namely that it will not accurately represent the planet Earth, because of the vast difference in scale and (known + unknown) factors involved.

What even simulated low clouds in the tent, or higher clouds for that matter? Nothing, it seems.

Sep 18, 2019
@Kordane.
Even if it's a "large thin/clear plastic housing", it will STILL inevitably suffer from the exact same problem as if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab - namely that it will not accurately represent the planet Earth, because of the vast difference in scale and (known + unknown) factors involved. What even simulated low clouds in the tent, or higher clouds for that matter? Nothing, it seems.
Those are all the other well known variables/factors. The point of the experiments was to ISOLATE and study the effects of variations in CO2 concentrations.....and this is objectively done by controlling/eliminating all the other variables you mention. That is the only way to determine what the CO2 effect by itself will do when more/less of it is involved. Just like one controls/eliminates extraneous variables in 'blind studies' etc. The point is to ascertain the CO2 effect; which may then be modelled as part of the complex feedback loops which we already know exist. :)

Sep 18, 2019
I have to log out again. Will be very busy next couple days. Be back when I can. Cheers till then. :)

Sep 18, 2019
@RealityCheck

That's not demonstrating what varying CO2 concentration will do in regards to planet Earth; all it does is demonstrate is what varying CO2 will do in that tent, under a small number of variable conditions.

What happens in that tent, just like what happens in a jar, is NOT necessarily what will happen when you scale it up to the planet Earth itself, with all of the associate factors (both known and unknown) that come with it.

Sure, it's the best scientists can do, but it's still grossly insufficient to represent what's actually going on planetwide.

All you're really doing is praising the efforts made in using a bigger jar.

I'm still going to apply the same principle to the tent as I do to the jar. All the tent experiment does is scale the jar up a bit. Big deal.

Sep 18, 2019
Taking the jar: by RealityCheck

Taking the jar into the field
&
changing variables
will still inevitably suffer
from the exact same problem
as if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab
namely that it will not accurately
represent the planet Earth

@granville583762.
where these variables were fiddled
to arrive at the desired outcome

not our words
not environmentalists word
but RealityCheck's words
I'm very disappointed in you, mate; I thought you had some integrity,

We call a spade a spade in these Yorkshire hills, RealityCheck
its a blunter sort of integrity
But, integrity, all the same

Fore you certainly take the jar, RealityCheck

Sep 18, 2019
Fore, RealityCheck
If you don't want to be accused of changing your results, RealityCheck
Stop changing your results, RealityCheck

Because, RealityCheck
Climate change, RealityCheck
Is a very bad example, to be changing these results, RealityCheck

p.s. does not fiddling these results, have this air of integrity about it, calling a spade a spade, RealityCheck

Sep 18, 2019
I find it amusing how you alleged I shifted the goal posts from "planet Earth" to the "atmosphere",
It's about CO2 in the atmosphere, not the whole atmosphere as a system. Like all liar deniers, you're obfuscating, bobbing, ducking, and weaving. This is pointless.

And you're no agnostic, so stop trying to lie about that, too.,

Sep 18, 2019
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more heat retained. True or false?


I don't know, nor do you, and nor does anyone else for that matter, because there are simply too many factors (known and unknown) involved to make any kind of definitive statement about that.
Nope. Satellites say so, temperatures say so, physics says so. Add more CO2 to air, and it traps more heat.

It's that simple.

What happens after that is what you're trying to pretend I'm talking about, but I'm not. You've utterly failed, and you're just another liar denier for trying to shift the goalposts from what CO2 does to the whole Earth-atmosphere system.

Sep 18, 2019
And instead of handwaving that somehow or other the heat is all gonna go away, I stick to energy conservation: heat never goes away, it just gets moved around.

The argument from a physics standpoint is quite simple:
1. CO2 has three different vibration modes. Two of those are equivalent to photons in the gap in the spectrum where most heat escapes to space at the temperature of the Earth's surface, determined by Wien's Law and the spectrum of water vapor.
2. Those vibration modes are unstable; unless the CO2 molecule dissipates this energy by colliding with another molecule, the photon is re-emitted, but in a random direction.
3. Initially all the photons from the surface are headed for space, but if one is absorbed by a molecule of CO2, then it is re-emitted in a random direction, half of which are back to the surface, meaning half the heat returns to the surface. If the CO2 molecule dissipates this energy by collision, the heat remains in the atmosphere.

Sep 18, 2019
So no matter what else happens, the heat stays either in the atmosphere or in the Earth's surface, and if there's more heat the temperature rises. Whatever else happens, that heat is retained, and the temperature goes up. The rest of the complications are just about how it gets redistributed, and we know CO2 is increasing because we measure that regularly. We also know more heat is being retained, because the temperature of the stratosphere has fallen; that's because more heat is being retained below it. Both satellite measurements and direct temperature measurements with thermometers in the stratosphere from aircraft prove this.

Sep 18, 2019
We've measured the temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean, and they're rising- not monotonically, because as you claim, the system is complex and the heat moves around, but all temperature trends are upward, as they must be because of the increasing heat. Now, you can postulate some "heat sink" that's magically going to make the heat go away, but there's no such thing in physics. Heat never goes away; it just gets shuffled around. But conservation of energy guarantees it won't go away no matter how complex the system it enters.

Sep 18, 2019
Quite frankly, because of the relative spectra of water vapor and CO2, and the Wien peak due to Earth's surface temperature, and the conservation of energy, all these arguments about how complex it all is fall flat on their faces. More CO2 = more heat retained = rising temperatures. It's just that simple, and we're watching it play out, and it's going to get worse fast.

The first thing to do is stop burning coal. If we can't do that, we're screwed, unless you think it's a good idea for a few billion people to die.

Sep 18, 2019
This statement

@DaSchneib
We also know more heat is being retained, because the temperature of the stratosphere has fallen; that's because more heat is being retained below it

Needs further investigation
For how can molecules
Below the stratosphere

Directly below the stratosphere
That is the troposphere, prevent heat
Transferring this boundary

The stratosphere
Is a layer of Earth's atmosphere
The second layer of the atmosphere

Ozone, a type of oxygen molecule
Is abundant in the stratosphere
Heats this layer

As it absorbs energy
From incoming ultraviolet radiation from the Sun
This atmosphere is not what it seems

And
Just as it gets interesting
RealityCheck is on this hop, yet again!

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib
Satellites say so, temperatures say so, physics says so. Add more CO2 to air, and it traps more heat


On the contrary, satellites do NOT tell you that CO2 traps more heat on planet Earth; satellites ONLY give you "data" - It's YOU who are coming up with the conclusion that CO2 traps more heat on planet Earth. The data can be right, but your conclusion(s) about the data can be wrong. Why is this point so hard for you to understand?

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib
we know CO2 is increasing because we measure that regularly. We also know more heat is being retained, because the temperature of the stratosphere has fallen; that's because more heat is being retained below it. Both satellite measurements and direct temperature measurements with thermometers in the stratosphere from aircraft prove this


All you can say you know is that CO2 "appears" to be increasing & that the temperature of the stratosphere "appears" to have fallen, based upon trends in the data. What you don't know is WHY. That is where I come in and say be objective & sceptical about the conclusions/theories that people then come up with to try and explain it. The problem is, you don't do that. Instead, you cling to one particular explanation, and then say: "All other theories are wrong, my pet theory is absolute truth, and if anyone dares to not bend the knee to my pet theory, I'll smear them as a denier."

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib
More CO2 = more heat retained = rising temperatures. It's just that simple


In a jar of CO2 in a lab it might be that simple, but it's NOT that simple when you look at the same effect on the scale of the planet Earth, with all the life on it & countless number of known and unknown additional factors involved. There are processes, both known and unknown, that may not only mitigate, but totally counteract the effect you observed in the lab; factors that aren't present in the lab, because the lab is not an accurate representation of the planet Earth! You may have a result in the lab, reproducible countless times, and yet when you check it on the scale of the planet Earth, you may observe that the exact opposite effect. What happens in the lab is not automatically what happens outside the lab, because when you leave the lab, you introduce countless additional factors that may very well invalidate your lab-centric conclusions.

Sep 19, 2019
This Atmosphere is not what it seems

Directly below the stratosphere is the troposphere, prevents heat transferring this boundary
The stratosphere a layer of Earth's atmosphere is the second layer of the atmosphere
Ozone, a type of oxygen molecule abundant in the stratosphere heats this layer

This stratosphere

Absorbs energy from incoming ultraviolet radiation from the Sun heating this stratosphere
This famous quote
DS: more heat is retained, the temperature of the stratosphere has fallen, more heat is retained below

As this temperature of this stratosphere falls
As this stratosphere's ozone absorbs ultraviolet energy
Warming this stratosphere

This fly in this ointment is this 0.04% CO2
Fore it is an almost insignificant trace element in our atmosphere at 0.04%
This CO2 has insufficient mass in our atmosphere for its Heat Coefficient to retain this heat

Sep 19, 2019
Stratospheric Ultraviolet Ozonic Tropospheric Warming

Fore what is DaSchneib inferring
As this stratosphere's ozone absorbs this ultraviolet energy
Warming this troposphere

This stratosphere transfers this heat
To this troposphere below
Heating this troposphere

Fore DaSchneib, this theory of
Stratospheric ultraviolet ozonic tropospheric warming
Is worthy of this Nobel Prize

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib
Satellites say so, temperatures say so, physics says so. Add more CO2 to air, and it traps more heat


On the contrary, satellites do NOT tell you that CO2 traps more heat on planet Earth; satellites ONLY give you "data" - It's YOU who are coming up with the conclusion that CO2 traps more heat on planet Earth. The data can be right, but your conclusion(s) about the data can be wrong. Why is this point so hard for you to understand?
Consilience. There are too many data sources all saying the same thing.

The physics you can't refute, however, is the most telling part.

Sep 19, 2019
All you can say you know is that CO2 "appears" to be increasing & that the temperature of the stratosphere "appears" to have fallen, based upon trends in the data. What you don't know is WHY.
Any good series of almanacs tells me why, with economic figures on how much coal and oil are consumed.

You lie like a rug. And you still haven't addressed the physics, and you're still lying, denying, bobbing, ducking, and weaving.

Sep 19, 2019
In a jar of CO2 in a lab it might be that simple, but it's NOT that simple when you look at the same effect on the scale of the planet Earth,
Sure it is. Heat never goes away. It's called "conservation of energy." First Law of Thermodynamics.

Sep 19, 2019
This Stratospheric Tropospheric Divide

Fore, DaSchneib
Your theory, your postulate
DS: more heat is retained, the temperature of the stratosphere has fallen, more heat is retained below

For this next step
As this stratosphere cools
The temperature of the stratosphere has fallen, more heat is retained below

What is this
Molecular mechanism
That enables more heat to be retained below?

Sep 19, 2019
Meanwhile, @chlordane, your position is "burn more coal." Right?

Sep 19, 2019
Just a jar of CO2 in a lab

RealityCheck
Has summed this CO2 in a "jar"
The mass of CO2, in this atmosphere, is insufficient for CO2s heat Coefficient, to absorb sufficient heat

As Nobel Prizes, lead to knight hoods, lead to audience's with her majesty
DaSchneib stratospheric warming
Sir Da Schneib, in this future, will be DaSchneib's full title

But, even when DaSchneib
Becomes Sir Da Schneib
There will always be, on this grassy river bank, DaSchneib's Bridge!

Sep 19, 2019
CO2 in a JAR

Foreth, RealityCheck hath summed up thiseth CO2
Taking the jar into the field
& changing variables

Will still inevitably suffer
From the exact same problem
As if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab

RealityCheck: just a jar of CO2 in a lab
RealityCheck hath summed up this CO2 as experimental fiddling of CO2 in a Jar
DaSchneib stratospheric warming sound more intriguing

Fore stratospheric warming is new and novel

Sep 19, 2019
Climate Change - Just a jar of CO2 in a lab: by RealityCheck

As this cause of Climate Change concerning CO2
A cause hath beeneth built around CO2
As the main contributing factor concerning climate change

As this Climate Change, attributing factor, "CO2" hath attained critical mass
RealityCheck, hath sunketh ineth thiseth mire
Of this attributing factor, CO2

RealityCheck's, name
Will forever be synonymous with RealityCheck's infamous quotation
"As if it was just a jar of CO2 in a lab"

Just a jar of CO2 in a lab!

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib
There are too many data sources all saying the same thing


There are "many data sources" giving the same kind "data", but NONE of them are giving conclusions. It's you, and people like you, who are looking at that data and coming up with conclusions about it. Satellites and supercomputers don't conclude ANYTHING. Only PEOPLE form conclusions, and people (as well as their conclusions) are fallible!

The physics you can't refute, however, is the most telling part


I'm not trying to refute anything, nor do I accept or deny any particular conclusion/theory. I'm simply trying to EDUCATE you about basic logic and how to act like a real scientist (being objective & sceptical about inherently fallible man-made conclusions/theories), rather than the religious zealot that you are (who accepts certain man-made conclusions/theories as unquestionable "absolute truth").

Sep 19, 2019
How to act like a real scientist: by Kordane

How to act like a real scientist
(being objective & sceptical about inherently fallible man-made conclusions/theories),
rather than the religious zealot that you are
(who accepts certain man-made conclusions/theories as unquestionable "absolute truth").

Interesting

Not the scientific content so much
As thiseth hatheth a poetic style
That hatheth becometh a scientific art to unravel

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib
your position is "burn more coal." Right?


I like the idea of nuclear fusion, personally. It is arguably the way forward for Mankind, irrespective of alleged environmental concerns. If we're to become a type 1 or even type 2 Kardashev civilisation, we're going to need nuclear fusion for that. Rather than waste trillions and trillions of dollars (as well as time/effort) on inefficient "renewables", we should be pushing ahead with nuclear fusion research & development to get the technology to the point of being commercially viable. I'm personally looking forward to seeing ITER in operation.

Sep 19, 2019
@granville583762

I think that climate alarmists' basic error is an example of the broken window fallacy. It's normally referred to in the context of economics, but it also applies to science too, because you can make the same error if you are forming judgements based on the "seen", without acknowledging the "unseen". Good explanation here: https://www.youtu...9FI1nAqs

This is why it's so important to not be arrogant, to never accept any conclusion/theory as absolute truth, to be objective, to be sceptical and to always acknowledge the existence of the unseen (including unknown unknowns; things that you don't know that you don't know).

Da Schneib may be educated in physics, but he appears rather ignorant when it comes to critical thinking & logic. Quite frankly, I don't know how anyone can call themselves a scientist if they forgo critical thinking & logic. It's not enough just to know physics; you also have to know how to be a scientist.

Sep 19, 2019
The AGWites are doubling down on their psychological terrorism.

Sep 19, 2019
If you can't refute it, then you got nothin'. Simple as that.

There's some logic for you.

We're done here, particularly after you used "alarmist," which is liar denier cant.

Sep 19, 2019
@Kordane
I'm simply trying to EDUCATE you about basic logic and how to act like a real scientist
...but he appears rather ignorant when it comes to critical thinking & logic
Dafuq?
LMFAO

this coming from a guy who *literally*:
- made a fallacious claim WRT "Theory" because you don't know the difference between colloquial and scientific terminology and can't be arsed to check

- is completely unaware of the scientific evidence for AGW and CO2 (and subsequently ignored the evidence when presented, as noted by comments above)

- continues to post ample evidence that you're not well-versed in STEM

- doesn't know what "causation" means in science

- makes arguments from denier's unchanged playbook and sites - which have been debunked with evidence
In a jar of CO2 in a lab... Earth
still with this lie?

may I point out (yet again) that you still haven't read FACE or CO2 studies
https://phys.org/...sea.html

Sep 19, 2019
@kordane
Rather than waste trillions and trillions of dollars (as well as time/effort) on inefficient "renewables", we should be pushing ahead with nuclear fusion research
and in the interim while we kill the planet we should... what, exactly?

and BTW, we are pushing ahead with fusion
we're just also exploring options with green energy because, you know, we can use that too
I know you're not big on checking evidence, but I'm willing to bet you can't find a reactor on the ISS
nor do I accept or deny any particular conclusion/theory
sorry
considering the evidence of just the singular link in my last post, this is a false claim (as defined here: http://wp.auburn....opinion/ )

at this point, I suggest actually using those MIT links I gave you

or at least read about the ongoing FACE and other CO2 experiments so that you don't look like a raving lunatic

use google scholar, not pornhub or republican times searches

Sep 19, 2019
the article above is not peer reviewed , on the ' Master Journals List ' , therefore we can ignore it

Sep 19, 2019
...when THEY SHOULD BE IN SCHOOL LEARNING STEM and how to spell in English.
says the dude who spells it "phorum"

Not sure if the first amendment covers a troll shouting, "It's just a lot of smoke!" in a crowded theater that's smoldering away...
says protoplasm

Yes, I choose to spell it with a 'ph'. Shall you lose sleep over it now? Physorg is spelt with a 'ph', and nobody seems to find that annoying, so perhaps you are overly sensitive?

Bad analogy - I assume that you are comparing smoke in a crowded theatre to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib
There are too many data sources all saying the same thing


There are "many data sources" giving the same kind "data", but NONE of them are giving conclusions. It's you, and people like you, who are looking at that data and coming up with conclusions about it. Satellites and supercomputers don't conclude ANYTHING. Only PEOPLE form conclusions, and people (as well as their conclusions) are fallible!

The physics you can't refute, however, is the most telling part


I'm not trying to refute anything, nor do I accept or deny any particular conclusion/theory. I'm simply trying to EDUCATE you about basic logic and how to act like a real scientist (being objective & sceptical about inherently fallible man-made conclusions/theories), rather than the religious zealot that you are (who accepts certain man-made conclusions/theories as unquestionable "absolute truth").
says Kordane

Precisely and well said, Kordane. I fully agree with your estimates.

Sep 19, 2019
-contd-
@Kordane

Most humans are inherently too lazy to search for the Truth themselves, and due to that laziness they fall victim to the unscrupulous methods that many scientists and researchers rely upon to find approval through 'peer review', which is often the reviews by like-minded peers and not free-thinkers who are independent enough to actually SEE if there is something phony/fake in the presentations/papers. And massive reliance upon computer-generated algorithms are only as good as what has been inputted even if the data is not current or has been doctored, or did not originate with actual OPTICAL OBSERVATIONS of the Event or Action in question.

In effect, it is similar to 'mainstream media' who copy from each other while pretending that each had originated the news story. But those readers who question will find that copying and boasting about erroneous data is easily detected if one isn't too lazy to search out the Truth.

Sep 19, 2019
Bad analogy - I assume that you are comparing smoke in a crowded theatre to CO2 in the atmosphere
When scientists use terms like "biological annihilation" while we're currently in the middle of Earth's sixth mass extinction event, are you suggesting it's a bad analogy because it's not as crowded as it used to be, or because all the world's _not_ a stage?

Ref: Earth's sixth mass extinction event under way, scientists warn

Sep 19, 2019
And what happened during the other FIVE mass extinctions? Did ANY of the life forms of Earth survive? Perhaps a good dose of adaptation was the key to survival, and it is adaptation that humans will need to undergo and learn to do it well. If the Earth is genuinely heating up, there is more to this effect than meets the eye. I would be much more concerned regarding the micro plastics in the oceans than the CO2 increase which plants require to grow well. There is no such thing as CO2 pollution, so be not so concerned about such plant food. If not for CO2 which you fear so much, there would be much less Oxygen for your breathing needs.

Sep 19, 2019
If there was a movement to wipe out the human race (and animals) the first thing would be to destroy every bit of plant life that exists on the Earth. With that destruction there would no longer BE Oxygen emitted from those plants into the atmosphere -- and you and all humans and animals would surely die.
But you want to get rid of a large part of the CO2 that plants use for food. If you wish to commit suicide there are faster ways to do it than waiting for less Oxygen in the air to breathe so that you are rendered gasping for air.
'WHAT FOOLS THESE MORTALS BE' -- Puck

Sep 19, 2019
When energy is abundant, it's how we currently produce and consume it that's being questioned: the current methods are driven by psychopathy and are killing the planet. It's better to use science.

Sep 19, 2019
No psychopathy is involved in production of energy. With the current technology there are no other alternatives to production of necessary energy to prevent humans from dying of the cold. Solar panels and wind are limited. Thermal and hydrothermal requires a close proximity to the source.
There are those who regard the present population overgrowth as a scourge and who would welcome any means of preventing any further human overpopulation. And eventually all humans die naturally - some of incurable diseases, and some who have caught a disease from such as illegal immigrants - diseases that had been wiped out previously. But a certain percentage of humans presently don't have a problem with illegals bringing diseases into the US, the UK or Europe. THAT is a good example of Psychopathy.

Sep 19, 2019
@Kordane.

Good morning (here). My visit to Sydney is postponed to next weekend, so I came in to see what transpired here since yesterday. And, wow, it seems the mice do like to play when the cat was thought to be going away! :)

Anyhow, you appear to have a uniquely confused idea of what constitutes experiments in real world. Perhaps you are confusing that methodology (with computer simulations which can be subject to all sorts of in-built biases/assumptions and input/output interpretational laxity). Real world experiments check the reality-level of resultant outputs/interpretations/conclusions; hence relevant real-world experiments (not simulations preceding real-world experiments) reduce level of ambiguity because (as in this case) we employ longstanding/long-understood GEOCHEMISTRY and GEOPHYSICS knowledge that also allowed us to conclude re effects of Ozone Hole, Plate Tectonics etc etc. The variables/methodology/controls etc is more comprehensive/exhaustive than you imply. :)

Sep 19, 2019
ps @Kordane.

You can see extant current examples of this sort of real-world based conclusions/predictions whenever the Meteorology Models are applied to predict imminent developing/intensifying and track/effects of Typhoons, Hurricanes, Cyclones and Tornadoes, based on well-known Thermodynamics (heat energy availability/distribution over water) and of prevailing seasonal atmospheric wind current patterns from sea-level to stratosphere altitudes. The same way that national emergency services plan their necessary actions based on the reality-based knowledge/predictions re such storm dynamics, we should also be planning necessary action in re to the knowledge/predictions re climate change which our modelling and real-world observations and experiments have elucidated for OUR benefit now and in the future. It is a sorry excuse for an 'intelligent species' (at the level humans claim to be) that would ignore tried and proven knowledge/understandings about imminent dangers of this gravity.

Sep 19, 2019
Do more HONEST research. Good idea not to do research that is only expedient in providing the means for creating an embargo on supplying energy to those in need of it. Possibly most of humanity could adapt to the cold as long as they have the means to cook their food and enjoy the benefits of hot water. If one wishes or prefers to enjoy the old ways of many thousands of years ago, then by all means, don't have electrical energy or petrol for your travels.
Not everyone would agree with your choice, but what the hey.

Sep 19, 2019
@S_E_U.
Do more HONEST research. Good idea not to do research that is only expedient in providing the means for creating an embargo on supplying energy to those in need of it. Possibly most of humanity could adapt to the cold as long as they have the means to cook their food and enjoy the benefits of hot water. If one wishes or prefers to enjoy the old ways of many thousands of years ago, then by all means, don't have electrical energy or petrol for your travels.
Not everyone would agree with your choice, but what the hey.
Mate, you are starting to wander into fantasyland opinionating based on an obvious lack of real world picture re all these things you opinionated about. Consider: The development/distribution of renewables actually EMPOWERS everyone to provide their own energy needs/security at an (increasingly) affordable (ie, non-exploitative) manner which hitherto was not possible because powerful monopolistic entities controlled/restricted the distribution of energy. :)

Sep 19, 2019
ps @S_E_U.

You can see examples of this already wherever even 'modest' level/installation of local/community solar/wind power system is implemented in remote/poor communities that previously had to GO WITHOUT and burn camel/cow dung and got lung diseases thereby. Or they had to burn expensive diesel fuel and pay for maintenance/replacement costs of the diesel generator which inevitably beak down. There is very little such costs for modest solar/wind power systems; and health benefits and cost-savings quickly may for the renewables system. And the local/community doesn't have to be held hostage to 'profiteering' control and/or 'absent altogether' access. No wonder the Fossil troll-factory campaigns have been so widespread and desperate; they are being by-passed by consumers who increasingly will no longer be captive to such criminally exploitative, dirty fossil industry 'mafia' protectionism/extortionist/control. Learn and think a LOT more re the REAL/FULL picture before opining. :)

Sep 19, 2019
I have already understood the truths of the energy problem. There is nothing new about it except for the fact that energy is sold to the consumer, whereby the producer makes a profit. And that profit makes it possible to pay their employees/workers a decent salary, as well as making it possible to acquire and produce even more energy.
I believe that there would be a great and very loud outcry from the public if their sources of energy were discontinued and dismantled in favour of the limited energy production of solar and wind power. On extended cloudy days when the solar arrays are not producing enough energy even for charging of batteries, and if the wind won't cooperate, how is one supposed to heat water for a shower, for example? You cannot count on Al Gore or Michael (hockey stick) Mann to allow you to use their facilities. So what would you do, RC?

Sep 19, 2019
Even the supply of water that enters the faucets in your house or your flat is driven by electricity, where the water is pumped either from your well or from a community facility (tower). Or would you prefer to dig a well and draw buckets of water yourself?
That is how humans got their water in the old days, and they relied on gravity to be rid of dirty water. Somehow they managed, didn't they.
Humans can go back to all that if they want. There is nothing to stop you from going natural.
:)

Sep 19, 2019
Michael Milken- yes, that Michael Milken- now says renewables are a better buy than fuelish oil and coal stocks.

Suck on it.

https://www.cnbc....ken.html

Sep 19, 2019
Oh, and if you want an extra little fillip, read that article to the end and you will find BP- yes, that BP- stating that renewables will provide most of the world's power by the end of the next two decades. BP! Shit, I may have to start buying their gas! Of course, that's no biggie- I don't buy much gas anyway. But I have some money to invest in stocks. :D

Sep 19, 2019
@S_E_U.

You seem to be going into 'overdrive' repeating drivel 'talking points' from long-discredited, and just plain barmy, Fossil-lobby campaigns aimed at bamboozling people who aren't au fait with the evolving reality in this context. The renewables are fast being expanded to replace uneconomic and/or just plain dirty/unhealthy fossil fuels based energy. And the 'wages' etc argument is ludicrously naive/erroneous when closely examined. Consider: If you didn't have to earn the money to pay for costly/dirty/health-compromising etc fossil energy, then your wages wouldn't have to be wasted on costly/unhealthy fossil energy, would they? Moreover, the extra cost savings from improved health/environmental dividends mean that your wages would have to also cover the cost of unaffordable health/social support systems. And the jobs would be in the renewables and other industries which will spring up to replace the jobs in the dangerous and dirty fossil industries. See the WIDER picture. :)

Sep 19, 2019
ps @S_E_U.

You know you have it wrong when our (Conservative Party) ex-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull goes on record (again just yesterday!) to admit that renewables with storage is coming in cheaper than coal even NOW; and the evolving trend is they will be coming in even cheaper as the transitional stage of increasing implementation proceeds; thus making the building of new coal power stations stupid and counter-economic. Not to mention the benefits of healthier, safer jobs/environment and the social/health cost savings they are already making possible due to safer and healthier workforce/communities. I suggest you learn about what's really going on NOW and imminently in the REAL world, mate; and stop just repeating such patently lame Fossil Industry troll-talking points long found to be ridiculous and dangerous crap which no-one, including you, should repeat before actually wising up to the global and local reality re renewables evolving under our noses as we speak. :)

Sep 19, 2019
And Shell- yes that Shell- is transitioning 700,000 British energy customers to renewables at no extra charge. Yes really: https://www.cnbc....ity.html

And meanwhile has also cut ties with a lobbying group that is full of liar deniers:
Shell said it had found "material misalignment" over climate policy with the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and would quit the body in 2020.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-04-03/shell-oil-says-it-will-quit-lobbying-group-doesnt-support-climate-change

After Shell, Milken, and BP have said you're full of shit, anyone still spouting this bullshit looks like the tool they are.

Sep 19, 2019
You guys are so fucked. The smart money is on its way to renewables. You must be the stupid money. Feel free to keep subsidizing the losers. Maybe you might wanna rethink your positions on Social Security- or welfare.

Sep 19, 2019
Shell- is transitioning 700,000 British energy customers to renewables ''

thats a bit of a trick given ,,

''Of electricity generated in 2018, gas accounted for 39.4 per cent whilst coal accounted for
only 5.0 per cent. Renewables share of electricity generation increased to 33.3 per cent in
2018 - a record high -

Sep 19, 2019
Renewables share of electricity generation increased to 33.3 per cent in
2018 - a record high
I have no idea what you're claiming since the last sentence in your quote nullifies your point.

Sep 19, 2019
@RealityCheck
There is absolutely NO arm-twisting wrt consumer preferences. Every consumer is free to do as they please. If they want solar panels and windmills on their property, that is strictly up to them.
I have no wish to dictate my wishes to anybody, and if I made an attempt to tell humans what they should or should not do, I am almost certain that they would tell me to go pound sand. And I wouldn't blame them for it.
But what you and other AGW cultists are thinking of doing is exactly what I have said (above) that I would NOT do. You want to be the new Dictator of Climate Change and will insist on making DEMANDS on the humans who live on this world, much to their future chagrin.
The point I am making is that if YOU wish to stop yourself from using fossil fuels, then it is YOU that should stop using fossil fuels. Not only you, of course, but all those who are in your camp.
Since this is not Soviet Russia, you cannot FORCE ANYONE to do that which he doesn't want to do.

Sep 20, 2019
@RealityCheck
When the time arrives that renewable energies such as solar and wind power are the go-to power structures worldwide and the technology is so improved that no one could refuse it any longer; and the commercial conglomerates have decided en masse to give it a try and forsake the production of fossil fuels since the vast majority of consumers are clamoring for renewables, it is only THEN that what you wish for just may materialise. Until that time arrives, you all can cry the blues and worry yourselves to death, but nothing much will happen UNTIL a consensus is made by PAYING CONSUMERS that renewables is the better choice.
But if successive winters aren't mild and warming, but are freezing temperatures instead, it is YOU and your camp that will be told to pound sand. Not every citizen who owns their own home can afford the costs of purchasing and maintaining solar panels, and they will not allow their family to freeze for YOUR and the AGW cult's sake.

Sep 20, 2019
And, much to my surprise, the former President of the US, Barack Hussein Obama has purchased a fabulous house in Martha's Vineyard very close to the Kennedy compound in the state of Massachusetts. ON THE BEACH!!!
I don't know what is wrong with that man. Hasn't he heard the news that the OCEANS ARE RISING and will flood all the coastal cities? A $15 million dollar (USD) home that is adjacent to the beach. Imagine that.

Sep 20, 2019
100 % from 33% ? duh

Sep 20, 2019
Haven't a clue what you're talking about. Here, this one is from your masters: https://www.shell...ltd.html

Here's another story from a different outlet: https://www.reute...CN1R50ON

Looks fine to me. Looks like they're investing in renewables. Looks like their customers are getting 100% renewables and not paying more for it, and they also get discounts at the gas pump. Smart businesses make money.

Sep 20, 2019
Good morning: by RealityCheck

Good morning (here). My visit to Sydney is postponed to next weekend, so I came in to see what transpired here since yesterday. And, wow, it seems the mice do like to play when the cat was thought to be going away! :)

seems like, RealityCheck
not so much
a good morning after all

for RealityCheck
your worst nightmare
Surveillance_Egg_Unit

has instilled in your noddle
some Reality, RealityCheck
welcome to the real world, RealityCheck

Sep 20, 2019
I'D LIKE TO
GROW UP, PLEASE
https://scx1.b-cd...erag.jpg

Concerning this image
why are there, only predominately girls, physically on their haunches on the ground, making these posters
we all know, girls are more flexible, and make better gymnasts, than boys
girls are obviously, superior in every way, to boys

But come on, this is taking the biscuit

Sep 20, 2019
I'D LIKE TO
GROW UP, PLEASE
https://scx1.b-cd...erag.jpg

Concerning this image
why is a girl holding up this placard
for everyone knows, girls grow up faster than boys, and are more mature

The fight against global warming continues to face strong political headwinds and institutional inertia despite a rapid crescendo of public awareness and concern
https://scx1.b-cd...agai.jpg

Concerning this image
why are there only predominately girls physically on their haunches on the ground making these posters
we all know, girls are more flexible, and make better gymnasts, than boys
girls are obviously superior in every way to boys

But come on, this is taking the biscuit

p.s. due to this three minute rule the comment became a cropper

Sep 20, 2019
I fail to see the point in spending enormous sums of money (trillions upon trillions of dollars, if not in the tens or hundreds thereof) on renewables, when you could just invest that money into nuclear fusion R&D, and end up with a FAR superior power supply than anything else that exists; so superior, in fact, that it's the only realistic way to achieve kardashev type 2 civilisation status (unless you have anti-matter/matter reactors, or something). You're not going to get there with renewables. As soon as nuclear fusion is perfected, ALL renewables will be utterly obsolete.

If any of you were serious about replacing fossil fuels, you'd be on the fusion bandwagon too. That's why I don't think any of you are serious about it. I think you're just pushing what's politically correct, and right now "renewables" is the virtue signaller's choice of power generation. I say drop that dead tech and get on the fusion bandwagon.

Sep 20, 2019
Oh, I'm into fusion big time. Bussard polywell. A bit skeptical about the DPF. Very skeptical of ITER; looks like a standard Eurocratic clusterfuck to me, with assistant deputy commissioner's assistants to the assistant to the director's assistant to the director general's secretary. There're four or five other schemes out there, and I'm mildly interested in the stellarator.

But none of that shit is getting going anytime soon no matter how much money you throw at it. We need solutions long before fusion is going to provide them; at least enough to get fusion done before we lose a few billion people.

Sep 20, 2019
Fusion

Kordane> I fail to see the point in spending enormous sums of money (trillions upon trillions of dollars, if not in the tens or hundreds thereof) on renewables, when you could just invest that money into nuclear fusion

Jupiter, a failed star
Mass: 1.8982x10+27 kg
Radius: 69,911 km

Whereas successful fusion

The Sun, active fusion
Mass: 1.989x10+30 kg
Radius: 695,510 km

As in these figures, Kordane
Lies the reason why fusion in its present diminutive form
Is Not Making Any Headway Any Time Soon
As no amount, of trillions of dollars, can begat 2x10+30kg

Sep 20, 2019
And BTW, solar and wind are fusion power, driven by the giant fusion reactor in the sky. Maybe you forgot.

This is a case of, it's raining soup, get me a clean bucket.

Sep 20, 2019
Keep it up, DaSchneib
And BTW, solar and wind are fusion power, driven by the giant fusion reactor in the sky. Maybe you forgot.

fore, DaSchneib
We have become befuddled
As to where 90% of where all of planet earth's energy comes from

As know we think it comes from, Climate-change!

Sep 20, 2019
Fusion

Kordane> I fail to see the point in spending enormous sums of money (trillions upon trillions of dollars, if not in the tens or hundreds thereof) on renewables, when you could just invest that money into nuclear fusion
Jupiter, a failed star
Mass: 1.8982x10+27 kg
Radius: 69,911 km

Whereas successful fusion

The Sun, active fusion
Mass: 1.989x10+30 kg
Radius: 695,510 km

As in these figures, Kordane
Lies the reason why fusion in its present diminutive form
Is Not Making Any Headway Any Time Soon
As no amount, of trillions of dollars, can begat 2x10+30kg

For this reason, Kordane
The Sun has flares
So do our fusion reactors
The Sun absorbs these flares without a whimper
Where as
These flares destroy our fusion reactor
These flares are a vital ingredient of fusion

Fore we mitigate these flares - there by destroying fusion

Do you get this picture, Kordane?

Sep 20, 2019
@Da Schneib
none of that shit is getting going anytime soon no matter how much money you throw at it


Not with that attitude it won't.

I just wonder why you don't reserve the same candidness when it comes to the long, expensive and onerous transition from fossil fuels to renewables. By the time you even get part of the way there, we could already have nuclear fusion commercialised. What will you say then - "Sorry for wasting so much time, effort and money on obsolete technology"? That's not good enough, damn it.

Why waste all those resources on something we KNOW we won't be using in the future??

Your fears over alleged man-made climate change are not valid grounds for wasting vast amounts of resources & violating the individual rights of countless numbers of people all over the world. If you want to pursue a transition from fossil fuels to renewables, then at least try to do it without violating anyone's individual rights & without impoverishing the whole world.

Sep 20, 2019
Kordane – In this vacuum of infinite energy – But not a single drop!

If you want to pursue a transition from fossil fuels to renewables, then at least try to do it without violating anyone's individual rights & without impoverishing the whole world.

Firstly, Kordane
Renewables derive their energy from fusion solar power
Which we are extracting this fusion power now, this minute
With windmills, solar panels, the methods are endless

Whereas, on this other hand
Our fusion reactors
Only work
When there attached
To their Giga-watt, fossil fuelled, power stations, to keep their fusion fires burning

Fore fusion, Kordane
Is always these 35 years away!

Sep 20, 2019
@Da Schneib
none of that shit is getting going anytime soon no matter how much money you throw at it


Not with that attitude it won't.

I just wonder why you don't reserve the same candidness when it comes to the long, expensive and onerous transition from fossil fuels to renewables. By the time you even get part of the way there, we could already have nuclear fusion commercialised....

Why waste all those resources on something we KNOW we won't be using in the future??

Your fears over alleged man-made climate change are not valid grounds for wasting vast amounts of resources & violating the individual rights of countless numbers of people all over the world. If you want to pursue a transition from fossil fuels to renewables, then at least try to do it without violating anyone's individual rights & without impoverishing the whole world.


An amazingly candid display of stupidity, Kordane.

Sep 20, 2019
Kordane

If you're from reformation school
you've
met
your
Match with, Da Schneib!

Sep 20, 2019
Meanwhile, utilities continue to invest in new renewable generating capacity while retiring fossil fueled generating capacity. Because it makes a lot better economic sense. In other words, ITS A LOT CHEAPER.

Sep 20, 2019
As I ride the wind (100% wind powered) in the most amazing vehicle I could ever imagine - a Tesla - while saving $$ along the way ($250 monthly savings on gasoline, no maintenance costs). Not only is fighting climate change the right thing to do, along with required for future human survival, its exciting, a whole lot of fun, and the best financial decision you could make.

Sep 20, 2019
@granville583762
Fore fusion, Kordane Is always these 35 years away!


That's certainly the trope, but I think it's an old and tired trope which has been holding us back from making the kind of investments necessary to commercialise and perfect the technology.

As I said, why spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on technology (renewables) that we're not going to be using in the future? Why not invest in technology (fusion) that we ARE definitely going to be using in the future? (for a VERY long time as well)

The problem is that renewables are BIG money now, and so people who are invested in it, both financially & intellectually, aren't going to want to give that up, no matter what. Renewables have become a massive lobby/pressure group, like bio-ethanol farmers/refiners in Ohio, that only care about their own narrow interests and damn everything else.

Sep 20, 2019

renewables = bird death
https://science.s...G-93lst8

Sep 20, 2019
BP has just sold all its oil and gas assets in Alaska to cut its carbon footprint in order to be consistent with the Paris Accord. This is a needless sale of assets caused by an 'Act of Extortion-The Paris Accord' against the shareholders [owners] of BP under the force of false premise concerning climate change '' '' The company that purchased the assets said it is going to invest more heavily in the fields than what BP had planned to invest resulting in increased emissions.''

https://www.armst...ysteria/

OT and by the way, Armstrong is the one warning that there is a declining market for treasuries ie neg rate , these are the next MBS and will disturb your bs greatly

Sep 20, 2019

renewables = bird death
https://science.s...G-93lst8


Was that paper supposed to support your anti-reality agenda? Because it says numerous times throughout the paper that climate change is responsible for the decline of avian species across the Unites States.


Sep 20, 2019
But we are spending trillions, Kordane

As I said, why spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on technology (renewables) that we're not going to be using in the future?

We are spending trillions on fusion
As has been said, Kordane
It's not the money
These fusion reactors have to be a mite larger

Nature
Did not spend a bean on our solar ball of fusion
Its heating this earth
92million miles away

Kordane
Our solar ball of fusion
Did not cost a bean to create
Its solar energy is free
Our solar sun does not charge earth a yearly stipend
For all this free heat
Our sun is supplying free of charge

And what do you think Kordane, you wants us to do
Spend the trillions collecting this everlasting free heat
Kordane, you wants us to spend these trillions
On duplicating
This solar furnace
At an annual stipend
of even more trillions
Every year, forever

When
We can get it for free
With a towel, a sunny location, lounging on the beach, with a Jar

Sep 20, 2019
here is one for all you sea level risers ::

https://www.cnsne...7zOIKyvM

Sep 20, 2019
Into Overdrive: by RealityCheck

You seem to be going into overdrive
repeating drivel
talking points from long-discredited
and just plain barmy
Fossil-lobby campaigns
aimed at bamboozling people
who aren't au fait
with the evolving reality in this context
The renewables
are fast being expanded
to replace uneconomic
and or just plain dirty
unhealthy fossil fuels based energy
And the wages
etc argument
is ludicrously naive
erroneous when closely examined
Consider if you didn't have to earn the money
to pay for costly
dirty
health
compromising
etc
fossil energy
then your wages
wouldn't have to be wasted
on costly
unhealthy fossil energy
would they
Moreover
the extra cost savings from improved health
environmental dividends
mean that your wages
would have to also cover
the cost of unaffordable health
social support systems
And the jobs would be in the renewables
and other industries
which will spring up
to replace the jobs
in the dangerous
And dirty fossil industries

Almost intelligible!

Sep 20, 2019
@S_E_U.

There is no longer the luxury for humanity having "camps" or "sides" when the whole globe is for it if we don't collectively take action and expedite transition towards renewables and independence from fossil fuels hostage to national/terrorist activity which causes more cost and wholesale disruption than transition to renewables ever could. And in any case, FYI, the cost of transitioning to renewables is orders of magnitude LESS than just continuing fossil-fuels-business as usual. Besides, poor people/communities are the first to benefit most, as I already pointed out for you; so your continuing claim that anyone is being "coerced" into renewables is as ludicrous and erroneous as the rest of your continuing ill-informed opining re these matters. Please, @S_E_U, stop being a dupe/parrot for the denialist misinformation campaigns the fossil lobbies have splashed for so long across social media to gull, confuse, recruit and unleash 'weaponised stupids/bots'. Don't be one such.

Sep 20, 2019
@Kordane.
@granville583762
Fore fusion, Kordane Is always these 35 years away!
That's certainly the trope,..
That 'trope' came into being precisely because large centralised Fusion plants have always been so complex and intractable to realise economically, profitably, reliably for so long now; and for the foreseeable future!

why spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on technology (renewables) that we're not going to be using in the future?..
Who said (other than you) we're not? The age of the large, centralised, monopolistic Fossil/Nuclear energy plant is fast passing its 'use-by-date'; because local/distributed Renewables systems make it cheaper, safer, and more sustainable etc for individuals/communities/nations.

...renewables are BIG money now, and so people who are invested in it, both financially & intellectually, aren't going to want to give that up,..
Why should they? They make sense/profits which do not come with the risk/cost of extinction. :)

Sep 20, 2019
@S_E_U.
And, much to my surprise, the former President of the US, Barack Hussein Obama has purchased a fabulous house in Martha's Vineyard very close to the Kennedy compound in the state of Massachusetts. ON THE BEACH!!!
I don't know what is wrong with that man. Hasn't he heard the news that the OCEANS ARE RISING and will flood all the coastal cities? A $15 million dollar (USD) home that is adjacent to the beach. Imagine that.
Maybe, unlike you and your fellow dupes, he is aware that continuing accelerating action being taken against climate change by transitioning to renewables will avoid such catastrophic sea-level rise and other dangers already well explained to you that unchecked global warming will bring (and is already bringing even as the dupes keep parroting long-falsified disinformation from the fossil/nuclear lobbies). Don't be a dupe, @S_E_U; be an intelligent human being (instead of just whatever else it is you 'think' you are). Good luck to us all. :)

Sep 20, 2019
@Da Schneib
none of that shit is getting going anytime soon no matter how much money you throw at it


Not with that attitude it won't.
Has nothing to do with attitude. And even if it did, I'm not doing the work, so it won't affect that anyway.

How long have they been trying to do net power fusion, anyway? So where is it?

ITER probably will eventually work, but how long is that? And it's awful expensive. We can't afford to wait around for fusion to save us when we already have the means.

I just wonder why you don't reserve the same candidness when it comes to the long, expensive and onerous transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
Its already underway and two major energy companies are funding it.
[contd]

Sep 20, 2019
@Kordane.
That's not demonstrating what varying CO2 concentration will do in regards to planet Earth; all it does is demonstrate is what varying CO2 will do in that tent, under a small number of variable conditions.

What happens in that tent, just like what happens in a jar, is NOT necessarily what will happen when you scale it up to the planet Earth itself, with all of the associate factors (both known and unknown) that come with it.
Have some common sense if not some scientific sense, mate. The tents are not 'small', the variables many and diverse; all are scrupulously individually controlled/varied across many iterations/locations involved in major experimental programmes like that. The Earth system is already well known as to all the variables; hence why controlling/varying all those (including CO2 variable) in a scrupulously exhaustive regime is what 'teases out' the direct and indirect (feedback) effects from CO2 variations...and so informs objective conclusions. :)

Sep 20, 2019
[contd]
By the time you even get part of the way there, we could already have nuclear fusion commercialised.
Considering the snail's pace it's moved at so far I doubt it.

What will you say then - "Sorry for wasting so much time, effort and money on obsolete technology"?
LOL, it will never be "obsolete" to develop new energy technologies, and deploy them and make money. And the things we're learning doing it are things that will be useful later; take solar. Solar is the obvious energy source for autonomous spacecraft. You can't run out of fuel, and you can get it anywhere in the Solar System. Particularly in the asteroid belt, which is where we're going to get all the goodies, except water- and for that there's comets, which will be mined by autonomous spacecraft too. Overall investment in solar is a net gain, if you want to mine the Solar System, whether there's global warming implications or not.
[contd]

Sep 20, 2019
[contd]
Meanwhile, we're actually deploying solar, and working out all the bugs to make it as efficient and cheap as possible. Not to mention all the supporting technologies, like (widely neglected) switching power supply design and battery technology. (I've designed and built switchers in my garage, and used them in the field to power my telescope gear. My choice is the highest efficiency: the Cuk converter. Ever heard of it?).

Why waste all those resources on something we KNOW we won't be using in the future??
But we will be using it. There's all those other planets and moons out there. I bet we use windmills on some of them, and we'll have a good grounding in how they work and how to avoid problems, as well as in battery technology. Because we did it here on Earth first.

For a libertardian, you seem remarkably opposed to technology. What are you afraid of?
[contd]

Sep 20, 2019
[contd]
Your fears over alleged man-made climate change
It ain't my fear. I got what I need for the rest of my life; I'm in a place that isn't vulnerable to invasion and that grows a fair percentage of the vegetables consumed in the Western US, and won't be covered by the rising sea levels, and gets plenty of sunlight for solar energy, and gets plenty of water. When the water wars start, there's three nuclear powers right at the epicenter, China, India, and Pakistan. Hopefully the US and Russia can keep their dicks in their pants. But it doesn't matter to me; there's nothing worth nuking where I live. I just don't want to see a few billion people die. It's a moral thing; maybe you don't know anything about that.

[contd]

Sep 20, 2019
[contd]
wasting vast amounts of resources
Wasting how? Science is always valuable later on and we never can see what we might need. Might as well have it all. Technology (i.e. engineering) is also always valuable later in ways we cannot foresee; you're not a libertardian, you're a luddite. Somehow, according to you, fusion will take care of everything; looks like the same pie in the sky super magic sky daddy the religionists keep pushing. Yours is the fusion jebus.

violating the individual rights of countless numbers of people
No matter what else happens they need to stop having babies more than enough to replenish the population. If they don't, we're in a Malthusian trap. You going to suggest people are going to stop fucking (Ha! not bloody likely, as a certain class of Brits would say) or start using birth control (which your libertardian butt buddies are blocking in Congress for political gain)?
[contd]

Sep 20, 2019
[contd]
If you were really a libertardian you wouldn't be lining up with the fundies and stopping birth control. I was a libertardian when I was a teenager; I left when it became clear that the agenda was not liberty, but control.

If you want to pursue a transition from fossil fuels to renewables, then at least try to do it without violating anyone's individual rights & without impoverishing the whole world.
Seems like BP and Shell are doing exactly that. And Michael Milken is advising renewables for investment. Maybe you forgot.

Sep 20, 2019
''avoid such catastrophic sea-level rise ''

pay attention now,,, and its peer reviewed !

https://www.cnsne...7zOIKyvM

Sep 20, 2019
Personally, after having seen Shell, BP, and Michael Milken investing in renewables, I'm investigating my investment options right now, and will be choosing based on where the smart money is going. I have plenty of time. My horizon isn't six months.

Sep 20, 2019
RealityCheck, Oh RealityCheck

The world is not moving to Electric Power, because this world is drowning
It is moving to electric power
Fore this is this industrial revolution
As this is also where the money is!

Electric power is the Future, nothing what's so ever to do with climate change!

Sep 20, 2019
This white heat of this industrial revolution

Fore, RealityCheck
Having built your life around climate change
For what
All those wasted years
All these school kids off school
For what
These school kids, missing out, on a valuable electrical education
When this white heat of this industrial revolution, is taking place
Right under our very nose's
And all you can think about is climate change, RealityCheck
Come on, RealityCheck
Stick your head in a physics book for a change - This electrical world is passing you by

By the way, old chap
Your grassy river banks freshly mowed, your Bridge spring cleaned, for your finrot is festering so!

Sep 20, 2019
@RealityCheck
Since you seem to be so fired up about renewable energy, please explain to us which of these 'renewables' you find to be the MOST effective and workable solutions that could benefit each and every human on the planet; and that will also be most cost effective with the least amount of investment into its purchase and maintenance, and where its use will not depend too much, or at all, on the vagaries, fluctuations and unpredictabilities of what we refer to as "Nature".
You may itemise, if your wish and make a list, with the most favoured one at the top and the least favoured one at the bottom.

Incidentally, your opinion on Obama's purchase of a house on/adjacent to a beach doesn't make much sense. Particularly when it is predicted that Miami will be underwater very soon in the future.
Since it is said that the glaciers are melting faster now, your seeming approval of Obama's choice appears to be not well thought out. I doubt that he is a clairvoyant/fortune teller.

Sep 20, 2019
Clairvoyants and talented fortune tellers are few and far between. Otherwise, they would be able to tell us if, indeed, the city of Miami will have fish swimming in its streets, or not. If such were to occur, then it would be a certainty that the Obama family will have fish swimming in their "great room" at Martha's Vineyard. But perhaps you have some inside information, and the Obamas are depending on everyone to go out and purchase their brand new solar panels and windmills, which in turn should stop the glaciers from melting forthwith, saving their $15 million dollar home...on the beach.

Sep 21, 2019
Ah yes, SEU

@RealityCheck
your opinion on Obama's purchase
of a house adjacent to a beach
doesn't make much sense
Particularly when its predicted
Miami will be underwater very soon in the future
Since it is said
that the glaciers are melting faster now
your seeming approval of Obama's choice
appears to be not well thought out
I doubt that he is a clairvoyant
fortune teller

Are dear clairvoyant, RealityCheck
SEU
RealityCheck's mystic powers
Are lacking some zest of late
Fore, RealityCheck no longer
Has these leprechauns
At the bottom of his garden
Fore these magic leprechauns
Have vacated RC's garden
Hath taken their magic pots of gold
For these leprechauns
And their magic pots of gold
Are always seen
Glinting at the bottom of the garden
Fore I've noticed of late
An increased number
Settling at the bottom of the garden
They are far more than lucky charms
Fore they let their benefactors share in their magic pots of gold

SEU, fore RC hath forsaken this magic of these Shires!

Sep 21, 2019
The Life and Times of RealityCheck

Sep 18: I have to log out again. Will be very busy next couple days. Be back when I can. Cheers till then. :)

Sep 19: Good morning (here). My visit to Sydney is postponed to next weekend, so I came in to see what transpired here since yesterday. And, wow, it seems the mice do like to play when the cat was thought to be going away! :)

Was it raining?
That day
In your residential accommodation, in New South Wale, RealityCheck
As to your trip to Sidney, being cancelled
By the way, RealityCheck
Was the coach rescheduled for a secondary residential trip?
For we are all looking out for you, in your Australian outback, RealityCheck

Sidney, Australia's Lonely Planet
https://www.lonel...a/sydney

Sep 21, 2019
RealityCheck's Environmental World

That's a thought, RealityCheck
Concerning, rescheduling your coach
And your concern
For your, Australian Lonely Planet
Was your coach, environmentally electrically driven?
Or
Good old Diesel?

Sep 21, 2019
@Da Schneib
We can't afford to wait around for fusion to save us when we already have the means


To save us from what? Your completely unsubstantiated fears over alleged man-made climate change?

Unlike the children that alarmists abuse (striking fear into their pre-rational brains) on a daily basis in schools & the culture at large, I am NOT persuaded by emotional, nor faith-based arguments. Reason is the only coin of the realm that I accept.

I've given you (and others) ample opportunity to provide me with proof of causation between CO2 and climate change, and so far, none of you have offered any. Moreover, I find flaws in your logic, eg. treating apples & oranges as apples & apples, and treating correlation as causation.

So right now, I just don't see any valid reason to pursue renewables, over nuclear fusion. I think that you're allowing your emotions to control your thinking, and that's a bad thing.

Sep 21, 2019
@RealityCheck
The tents are not 'small', the variables many and diverse


They're still "small" compared to the scale of the planet Earth (obviously), and that's why I make the point as to why you can't really equate the two. What happens on the small scale is not necessarily what happens on the large scale. That's basic logic, pal.

The variables in a "tent" will never be equivalent to the number & degree of variables that are present on the scale of the planet Earth. Again, that's basic logic, pal.

The Earth system is already well known as to all the variables


That statement alone utterly disqualifies you.

The sheer arrogance (or perhaps deceit) of claiming that "all" of the variables are "well known". So according to you, there are no known unknowns, nor any unknown unknowns; we know everything; we are god; we are omniscient; only known knowns exist. What utter bloody rubbish, pal.

Sep 21, 2019
Reason is the only coin of the realm that I accept.
But you don't. You've had it and you haven't, and you even admit you can't refute the logic.

Stop your bullshit.

Sep 21, 2019
@Da Schneib
I was a libertarian when I was a teenager; I left when it became clear that the agenda was not liberty, but control


I'm not a libertarian, and I don't think you ever were either, if that's the conclusion you came to about libertarianism. Note: Some teenagers call themselves "libertarians" simply because they like using marijuana.

Have you ever considered that the reason you shunned libertarianism was because you were a "teenager", and thus lacked the maturity necessary to give libertarianism its due consideration?

I suspect that given your rights-violating enviro-statist views on forcibly imposing renewables upon the world, that you probably embrace fascism, socialism or outright communism. Those dreadful ideologies seem to be popular among climate alarmists. Stalin, Mao & Hitler would've approved of the 10:10 propaganda video that alarmists put out some time ago, where kids in school were literally blown to pieces because they dared to not bend the knee.

Sep 21, 2019
Kordane
If we fore go, fossil fuel, renewable fuel
While we wait for eternity for our fusion fires to burn bright

The Tyger: by William Blake, published in 1794 as part of his Songs of Experience collection

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies,
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water'd heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

Sep 21, 2019
@Da Schneib
You've had it and you haven't, and you even admit you can't refute the logic


You're not making any sense.

I am still waiting for you to provide proof of causation.

Well, in the absence of causation, here's what your alleged "correlation" looks like on the longest time scale we have: https://i.imgur.com/puA5Fzc.jpg (courtesy of Patrick Moore) - Not much correlation, is there?

Sep 21, 2019
rights-violating enviro-statist views
You have no idea what my views are- you've never asked.

I'm sorry, I don't bother with paranoid psychotics with delusions.

Sep 21, 2019
Hath we all left our senses at the door

Kordane
If we fore go, fossil fuel, renewable fuel
While we wait for eternity for our fusion fires to burn bright

For what is energy
It is
This proton and scrumptious electron in holy union
It is this electro-chemical
Reactions betweeneth two molecules
Joining in union
Exchanging electrons
Creating atoms and molecules
On this periodic table
Creating nitrous oxide
Creating carbon dioxide
Creating hydrogen
Creating lithium
Creating helium
For these lithium and helium
Are the most lethal creations in this Universe
Fore upon creation
Relativistic neutrons are created
Gamma radiation is created

For Kordane
Have you taken leave of your senses
Fore when you fore go these chemical fossil fuels
And venture in to this highly radioactive world
Of neutrons and gamma radiation

Only the mass of our sun can save you

Sep 21, 2019
@Da Schneib
You have no idea what my views are


I can infer them based upon what you've already advocated wrt policies to tackle alleged man-made climate change.

You can't transition the entire world to renewables, other than by violating the individual rights of countless numbers of people. You HAVE to engage in tyranny, because there will always be people who refuse to bend the knee. I'd like you to be honest about that, even though I don't think you will, because the optics of saying "I want tyranny" look pretty bad indeed.

Sep 21, 2019
All this Worlds Renewable

Da Schneib
If we converted the whole world to renewables, how long would it take?

Take India and Pakistan for example, where the roads are jam packed with rickshaws scooters etc
How many poverty stricken Pakistanis, on 1 rupee, can a day can afford a Tesla
Come to that, when he parks his Tesla by his rickshaw where is his electric socket
Between India and Pakistan there's over a billion people

Someone, some where
Is going to have to come up with
An electric rickshaw
Where you pedal a generator
To charge its battery
To run its electric motor
That drives the rickshaw

Because
This poverty stricken Pakistani
Earning 1rupee a day
Cannot afford to charge his rickshaws battery at the mains

p.s. pity this poverty stricken Pakistani, cannot even afford this "pedal electrically charged rickshaw"

Sep 21, 2019
Go green, Go electric

Well, we know where his electric socket is
He is going in to the market
To buy a beat up diesel generator
For 5 rupee's
That belch's out black smoke
Running on some cheap diesel fat, his mate got him cheap
To charge his spanking new Tesla
Parked by his rickshaw

How green is that!

Sep 21, 2019
Here is another sanity check:

"In a study published today in the journal Science Advances, scientists simulated the climate of the Eocene, an era 50 million years ago, for the first time. Back then, the world was 25 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is today.

The model's results, which align with geological evidence, suggest that when carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase, additional increases in CO2 then have an even bigger impact on the climate than they would have otherwise."

"Before the Eocene even started, global sea levels were estimated to be 40 to 100 meters higher than they are currently."

[ https://www.scien...r-future ]

alleged man-made climate change. You can't transition the entire world to renewables, other than by violating the individual rights of countless numbers of people.


AGW is not "alleged", see the article, it is observed. We are in transition, since it's cheaper.

Sep 21, 2019
AGW, is not, alleged

torbjorn_b_g_larsson> Before the Eocene even started, global sea levels were estimated to be 40 to 100 meters higher than they are currently

At 100 meters higher than they are currently, its most definitely alleged
There's not that much ice, in the entire world, to raise the sea level, by 100 metres

Because, as we are alleged, to be in a warm period, all the ice, has already melted
Fore, we're nowhere near 100 metres, and the poor polar bears, are already treading water!

Sep 21, 2019
AGW, is not, alleged

torbjorn_b_g_larsson> Before the Eocene even started, global sea levels were estimated to be 40 to 100 meters higher than they are currently

At 100 meters higher than they are currently, its most definitely alleged
There's not that much ice, in the entire world, to raise the sea level, by 100 metres

Because, as we are alleged, to be in a warm period, all the ice, has already melted
Fore, we're nowhere near 100 metres, and the poor polar bears, are already treading water!

p.s. fore this 3minute rule strikes again

Sep 21, 2019
The Life and Times of RealityCheck

Sep 18: I have to log out again. Will be very busy next couple days. Be back when I can. Cheers

In your residential accommodation, in New South Wale, RealityCheck
As to your trip to Sidney, being cancelled
By the way, RealityCheck
Was the coach rescheduled for a secondary residential trip?
For we are all looking out for you, in your Australian outback, RealityCheck

Sidney, Australia's Lonely Planet
https://www.lonel...a/sydney
says granville

The travelogues were nice and showed a lot of spice
The opera house in Sydney still reminds me of a nunnery
But the video of the Gay Pride parades in so many nations
Even in Tel Aviv, a city that has also succumbed to the evil declarations
The state of Israel is no longer holy, and has now become the place of iniquity
How did humanity fall so low only because they could?
Did they still not know what we all had understood?

Sep 22, 2019
Immodesty is the rule of the day. The loss of tranquility and calm is seen on the streets of every large city. Mayhem and impropriety have taken over from peace and the brotherhood of man.
And that's just the beginning.
As has been discussed in other places, other times - the fact is that any Tokamak that isn't the size of the Earth is doomed to failure, simply due to the deterioration of its walls as it is blasted by temperatures akin to those in the Sun. The truth is that NO Tokamak can withstand such temperatures for long. Why?
Observe the Sun as it travels from East to West. Do you see any walls or anything of the nature of a containment vessel keeping the energies of the Sun inside of such a vessel while keeping the heat contained IN the vessel? No, you say?
Well, right there is the secret of energy from FUSION. IT IS NOT CONTAINED. It is FREE to do whatever it pleases in the vacuous vacuum of Space. So Tokamaks are essentially useless for long term power generation.

Sep 22, 2019
I can infer them
Gee, isn't that predicting?

Pull your head out of your ass.

Sep 22, 2019
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson
In a study published today in the journal Science Advances, scientists simulated the climate of the Eocene, an era 50 million years ago, for the first time. Back then, the world was 25 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than it is today. The model's results, which align with geological evidence, suggest that when carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase, additional increases in CO2 then have an even bigger impact on the climate than they would have otherwise


I've heard the complete opposite; that when CO2 concentration increases, it becomes increasingly less effective at trapping heat. Nothing in the ice records appears to validate their conclusion anyway: https://i.imgur.com/puA5Fzc.jpg - The Eocene had the highest CO2 concentration ever recorded (over 6000 ppm), and yet had falling temperatures, contrary to alarmists' claims (of warming). Other times had ~6000 ppm and yet temperatures were higher and even lower than the Eocene. Explain that for me.

Sep 22, 2019
The Eocene had the highest CO2 concentration ever recorded (over 6000 ppm), and yet had falling temperatures
That was at the beginning of the Eocene; sequestration happened during the epoch, and it wound up cold when the CO2 dropped.

You're lying again, @Chlordane.

You also don't appear to have any answer for why you're making a fuss about predictions and then making them yourself.

Sep 22, 2019
@Da Schneib
it wound up cold when the CO2 dropped


It was 6000 ppm, which is x15 more concentrated than today, and yet temperatures were falling (not rising through the roof, like alarmists claim should happen) and had been falling pretty consistently for a hundred million years prior to the Eocene. No correlation between CO2 and temperature is apparent - https://i.imgur.com/puA5Fzc.jpg

If CO2 dropping means colder temperatures, then..
- Explain why temperatures soared during the permian, when CO2 concentration was almost the same it is today
- Explain why around 146M years ago, when CO2 rose, temperatures fell
- Explain why temperatures increased when CO2 concentration decreased during the silurian
And so on...

You also don't appear to have any answer for why you're making a fuss about predictions and then making them yourself


What predictions? I'm talking about ice core records. These happened in the past.

Sep 22, 2019
It was 20 million years. It's brain-dead to think the climate didn't vary over 20 million years. Cranks can't count.

Your prediction: I'm a commie.

You're full of shit and you can't keep track of either logic or epochs.

Neat, I got a new punching bag.

Sep 22, 2019
A self fulfilling philosophy: by Kordane

Kordane> I've heard the complete opposite; that when CO2 concentration increases, it becomes increasingly less effective at trapping heat

Fore Kordane
Thiseth iseth interesting
Fore in this context of these extinctionist climate activists
What you are postulating, Kordane
Is a self fulfilling philosophy
Fore as we reduce this CO2 from 0.04% to 0.03% CO2
We increase climate change
For these extinctionist climate activist's solutions, are to reduce this CO2 to lower levels than 0.03

Sep 22, 2019
Da Schneib

It is not known
whether
you are, Da Schneib
a climate activist
a climate change activist
a extinction activist
a extinction climate activist
or a extinction climate change activist
fore you know well, they are all the same
as these extinction climate change activist blocked these Dover roads
there is nothing in this 0.04% CO2
anywhere to the extent claimed
For this reason Da Schneib, after 3 Billion years we are still here!

The real problem, that needs addressing Da Schneib, is these extinctionists climate change activists

Sep 22, 2019
@Da Schneib
It was 20 million years. It's brain-dead to think the climate didn't vary over 20 million years ... you can't keep track of either logic or epochs


It did vary, but it didn't vary the way that climate alarmists, such as yourself, allege.

I gave several examples that run contrary to your claim that temperature will decrease if CO2 decreases. In these examples, temperature rose when CO2 decreased (eg. in the Permian it did so dramatically). This is not to say that temperatures will rise when CO2 decreases though, as there are examples where temperature decreases or stays the same, as CO2 decreases. Really, the point I'm making is that based upon the longest evidence we have (ice core records), there doesn't appear to be ANY correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, contrary to climate alarmists' assertions of a direct causal link.

If climate alarmists were right, then temperature would mirror the trend in CO2 concentration - It clearly doesn't though.

Sep 22, 2019
@granville583762
as we reduce this CO2 from 0.04% to 0.03% CO2... We increase climate change... For these extinctionist climate activist's solutions, are to reduce this CO2 to lower levels than 0.03


I get the impression sometimes that climate alarmists would happily see CO2 completely removed from the atmosphere, that all plant life dies as a result, and that we cease to survive as a species as a result.

I've heard various analyses which suggest that the climate was a lot more volatile at lower concentrations of CO2 (more violent/extreme weather), contrary to climate alarmists' claims of such weather being the result of higher concentrations of CO2.

Sep 22, 2019
It did vary, but it didn't vary the way that climate alarmists, such as yourself, allege.
Sure it did. But you'll never admit it; you'll just lie and deny some more.

The general description of the Eocene is "from greenhouse to icehouse."
The Eocene is not only known for containing the warmest period during the Cenozoic, but it also marked the decline into an icehouse climate and the rapid expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet. The transition from a warming climate into a cooling climate began at ~49 million years ago. Isotopes of carbon and oxygen indicate a shift to a global cooling climate.
https://en.wikipe..._climate

Sep 22, 2019
You have nailed it, Kordane

Kordane> I get the impression sometimes that climate alarmists would happily see CO2 completely removed from the atmosphere, that all plant life dies as a result,

Is it any coincidence?
We
Now have
These extinctionist climate changers, these extinctionist's are sequestrating this CO2

Sep 22, 2019
And stop lying about the Permian. You got no references, you're just making more lying denying claims with nothing to back you up. Claims without evidence can be rejected without evidence. And you make a lot of claims without evidence. Pony up or get off the science site.

Sep 22, 2019
Having failed to understand the physics of CO2, H2O, and Wien's law, you have then proceeded to logical fallacies, ad hominem attacks that actually turn out to have no foundation, and a passel of lies. We wouldn't want anyone to believe the lies, now would we?

Sep 22, 2019
If climate alarmists were right, then temperature would mirror the trend in CO2 concentration - It clearly doesn't though.

That's not correct. Scientists know quite well that CO2 is not the only factor in the climate. There have been times in the past when other factors have dominated. Even now, internal variability can cause global temperatures to cool for short periods even though CO2 levels increase. But the correlation between CO2 and temperature is well known (e.g., https://www.ncdc....e-change ). Additionally, a number of studies have shown that the current warming is due to humans and CO2: https://en.wikipe..._studies . In fact, due to the fact that natural forcings are tending to cool the earth, it's very likely that > 100% of the warming since 1970 is due to humans.

Sep 22, 2019
@Da Schneib
The general description of the Eocene is "from greenhouse to icehouse


wrt ice core records - https://i.imgur.com/puA5Fzc.jpg - The Eocene, whilst the highest temperature (just, and only briefly), was relatively unremarkable wrt CO2 concentration, since the concentration had already been in decline the prior 100M yrs, and continued in that trend for the next 30M yrs. Temperature, during this 140M yr period, did not mirror the downward trend in CO2 reduction. Temperature rose dramatically at the beginning, as CO2 decreased (contrary to climate alarmists' assertions), then was fairly level for the next 100M yrs (again, contrary to climate alarmists' assertions), before following a downward trend at the start of the Oligocene, until mid-way into the Pliocene where it has since remained relatively level. So out of that 140M yr period, only 35M yrs had a decreasing temperature alongside a decreasing CO2 concentration (which is what climate alarmists claim occurs).

Sep 22, 2019
@Da Schneib
And stop lying about the Permian


I haven't lied about anything. I'm simply referring to a graph (courtesy of Patrick Moore) plotted from the oldest evidence we have (ice core records) - https://i.imgur.com/puA5Fzc.jpg

I haven't formed any conclusions for or against any particular theory.

I am simply pointing out certain features on the graph and asking you to explain them wrt climate alarmist dogma. Go back and read my post from 8 hrs ago where I said explain, explain, explain. Alas, no explanation was forthcoming. Your response has instead been aggressively confrontational, to put it lightly.

Sep 22, 2019
@zz5555
Scientists know quite well that CO2 is not the only factor in the climate


https://www.nasa....ure.html

NASA: "Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature".

the correlation between CO2 and temperature is well known (e.g., https://www.ncdc....e-change


Not according to the oldest evidence we have (ice core records): https://i.imgur.com/puA5Fzc.jpg

The graph on the site you linked only covers the last 0.8M years. If one looks at the ice core record graph, we can see that temperature has been level and that CO2 concentration has been level (more or less) for the past 1.6M years. However, the further back we go, we see a TOTAL breakdown of this alleged "correlation" between CO2 concentration & temperature. Show me where this "correlation" is in the ice core records, because for the life of me, I just don't bloody see it.

Sep 22, 2019
the basis of these claims about the eocene , odd one here, the azolla event

https://en.wikipe...la_event

notice the key claim '' sequestered by plant burial to account for the observed 80% drop in CO2 by this one phenomenon alone.[citation needed] ''

has no citation wiki = bs

Sep 22, 2019
Not according to the oldest evidence we have (ice core records): https://i.imgur.com/puA5Fzc.jpg

The graph on the site you linked only covers the last 0.8M years. If one looks at the ice core record graph, we can see that temperature has been level and that CO2 concentration has been level (more or less) for the past 1.6M years. However, the further back we go, we see a TOTAL breakdown of this alleged "correlation" between CO2 concentration & temperature.

First of all, ice cores only exist for the last ~1 million years or so. So my graph is of ice cores. Your graph is not. Second, your graph does not show temperatures, it shows temperature changes. So, as you see in the Carboniferous period, as CO2 dropped, so did temperature. Of course, sometimes temperature precedes CO2 changes due to outgassing from the ocean.

cont'd.

Sep 22, 2019
However, it's trivial to show that the current temperature change is not preceding the change in CO2 (oceans are becoming more acidic - more CO2 - meaning they aren't outgassing). Additionally, as has been pointed out, CO2 is not the only thing that causes the climate to change. Solar output, orbital changes, continental movements, albedo changes, etc. all contribute. So sometime (as seen in your graph) other changes exceed those of CO2. However, all those can be easily discounted in the current warming. You can say that it's not CO2, however, the change in energy in the climate due to CO2 can be pretty easily measured and the data shows that the current warming is due to CO2 (as I said, very likely > 100% of the warming since 1970).

Sep 22, 2019
https://www.nasa....ure.html

NASA: "Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature".

This is mostly correct and your graph of geological temperature change/CO2 levels doesn't show otherwise. Remember, CO2 is responsible for >33C of the earth's surface temperature. That there are occasional fluctuations from that value due to other causes doesn't change the fact that CO2 is the primary control knob for the earth's surface temperature. And the natural climate forcings are working to cool the planet (and have for the last ~8000 years), so it would be dishonest to claim that it's natural. And since CO2 levels are about all we can control, it really is true that CO2 levels control the surface temperature.

Sep 22, 2019
@zz5555
First of all, ice cores only exist for the last ~1 million years or so. So my graph is of ice cores. Your graph is not.


It's not entirely, no. We have to look at deposits within rocks for evidence from earlier epochs. The graph does represent the best of our knowledge for those periods though, according to Patrick Moore.

in the Carboniferous period, as CO2 dropped, so did temperature


Yes, and then in the Permian the temperature bounced back even higher than it was before, even though CO2 was basically at the lows it's at today.

If you're arguing there's correlation between CO2 and temperature, you can't just cherry pick sections which correlate, but exclude sections that don't correlate.

Sep 22, 2019
@@zz5555
Solar output, orbital changes, continental movements, albedo changes, etc. all contribute ... However, all those can be easily discounted in the current warming


They contribute, but they don't contribute - Do you not see the inherent contradiction in that statement?

the change in energy in the climate due to CO2 can be pretty easily measured and the data shows that the current warming is due to CO2


How does one go about measuring the "change in energy in the climate"? That doesn't sound right to me.

Also, how can the data show that current warming is "due to CO2" and not something else? The data would have to eliminate ALL other factors - which is impossible, since there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns which can't be eliminated since they're unknown, and therefore unquantifiable. Furthermore, "data" doesn't form conclusions (eg. current warming is "due to CO2"); only people form conclusions. Don't conflate data with people.

Sep 22, 2019
@zz5555
NASA: "Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature" ... This is mostly correct and your graph of geological temperature change/CO2 levels doesn't show otherwise


The graph doesn't show any correlation between CO2 and temperature. You cherry-picked a section that fit with your view wrt CO2 & temperature, but then ignored all the sections that don't fit with said view.

CO2 is responsible for >33C of the earth's surface temperature


Based on what evidence? CO2 is only a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, and yet you want me to believe that such a tiny proportion of gas is responsible for >33C of the surface temperature? I highly doubt that claim. CO2 doesn't even absorb most the spectrum; just a small bit of it.

since CO2 levels are about all we can control, it really is true that CO2 levels control the surface temperature


Just because we can control the man-made CO2 component, it doesn't automatically mean that's the control mechanism for the entire climate.

Sep 22, 2019
They contribute, but they don't contribute - Do you not see the inherent contradiction in that statement?

No. I said that they contribute to the climate over the history of earth, but that they aren't contributing to the current warming. Most of them change so slowly that there's no way that there's no way they could contribute to the current warming.

How does one go about measuring the "change in energy in the climate"? That doesn't sound right to me.

There's only one way for energy to come into and to exit from earth - radiation. This can be measured from satellites and has. The changes show that the climate is warming due to greenhouse gases (https://journals....MS2634.1 ). More recently, how much warming is due to CO2 has been directly measured (http://asl.umbc.e..._CO2.pdf ).

Sep 22, 2019
I was going to respond to your Gish Gallop point by point, but then I saw the following:
Based on what evidence? CO2 is only a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, and yet you want me to believe that such a tiny proportion of gas is responsible for >33C of the surface temperature? I highly doubt that claim. CO2 doesn't even absorb most the spectrum; just a small bit of it.

Anyone who makes the claim about "only a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere" is either a troll or incapable of rational thought. (Hint: there are poisons that will kill you at smaller percentages in your body. How is that possible?)

In another thread, you've claimed to be something of a sociopath. That suggests that you don't really have anything worthwhile to contribute to any conversation, so I don't think it's worth my time to respond further.

Sep 22, 2019
There is no "global temperature". It is nonsense.
At least until 1982 it was not possible to measure temp of the globe.
1880????

Sep 22, 2019
Sure there was. Temperature measurements of the sea have been ongoing since the 18th century.

All you gotta do is add them together and divide by the number of measurements. It's not hard.

Do you have trouble with division?

Sep 23, 2019
@zz5555
Most of them change so slowly that there's no way that there's no way they could contribute to the current warming


"Most" of them is not all of them, so even you are admitting, whether you acknowledge it or not, that 'some' factors can cause rapid change. You must also admit that there will inevitably be known unknowns (things we know we don't know) & unknown unknowns (things we don't know we don't know), and that these may also contribute. So it's rather disingenuous to pin ALL the blame for the warming on CO2, when you don't appear to know that for a fact.

There's only one way for energy to come into and to exit from earth - radiation. This can be measured from satellites and has


iirc, CO2 accounts for ~0.04% of the gas in the atmosphere, CO2 only absorbs 8% of the infrared part of the spectrum, CO2 then absorbs all of it (ie. saturation) before re-emitting most of it back into space. Hence, I have strong doubts that CO2 is responsible for global warming.

Sep 23, 2019
@zz5555
In another thread, you've claimed to be something of a sociopath. That suggests that you don't really have anything worthwhile to contribute to any conversation, so I don't think it's worth my time to respond further


That's a dirty smear. I simply reject the morality of altruism (human sacrifice as the primary source of virtue) and I reject the philosophy of collectivism (subjugation of the individual to the collective). It's rather contemptible to accuse me of being anti-social simply because I refuse to sacrifice myself to others & refuse to allow myself to be subjugated to others. You might favour such inherently tyrannical ideas, but I do not, and for good reason.

But hey, if you can't argue the facts, attack the character of your opponent, and then run away from the debate. That's the zz5555 way to do things.

Sep 23, 2019
CO2 absorbs the infrared by saturation re-emitting it back into space: by Kordane

CO2
Accounts
for ~0.04%
of the gas in the atmosphere
CO2 only absorbs
8% of the infrared part
of the spectrum
CO2 then absorbs
all of it
ie. saturation
before re-emitting
most of it back into space
Hence
I have strong doubts
that CO2
is responsible
For global warming

Remember, remember, originally, this CO2, was a Research Grant

Sep 23, 2019
Is this True!

Does CO2, absorb infra-red?
Then
Does this CO2, Re-emit, this absorbed Infra-red, Radiatively, into, This Vacuum of Space?

Sep 23, 2019
For this sounds familiar

The CO2 absorbs infra-red
Immediately re-emitting this infra-red
So that
It is free for this molecule of CO2 to absorbs infra-red radiation
Which
Coincidently, it immediately re-emits this infra-red
And so the cycle continueths

For in point of fact
If the only infra-red, is the infra-red, this CO2 molecule re-emitted
It can re-absorb, the re-emitted, emitted infra-red radiation

Now, there's a Radiatively, tongue twister if, ever there was one!

Sep 23, 2019
@Da Schneib
Temperature measurements of the sea have been ongoing since the 18th century. All you gotta do is add them together and divide by the number of measurements. It's not hard.


It's not hard to gather data (eg. temperature) and then take an average of the data. What's hard is forming conclusions/theories (about the data) that TRULY reflect objective reality, rather than getting it wrong or partly wrong.

Sep 23, 2019
Absorption in Re-emitting Infra-red Photons in Carbon Dioxide

This infra-red
Radiation
Could possibly be a single photon of infra-red?
Constantly
Forever
For eternity
Be the only photon
Eternally absorbed, emitted, absorbed, emitted in this carbon dioxide molecule

Sep 23, 2019
This CO2 Molecule is Quasi-Neutral in its Temperature

This raises this point of this climatic temperature
When absorbing and re-emitting
This CO2 molecule
Raises its temperature on absorption of this photon
Then
Reduces its temperature on re-emitting of this photon
So
It matters not, how many trillions of photons, this CO2 molecule absorbs and re-emits
Infra-red Photons do not Increase this Atmospheric Temperature in carbon dioxide molecules

In the words of our Quasi-Neutral Sage - This CO2 Molecule is Quasi-Neutral in its Temperature

Sep 23, 2019
@granville583762
Is this True! Does CO2, absorb infra-red? Then Does this CO2, Re-emit, this absorbed Infra-red, Radiatively, into, This Vacuum of Space?


iirc, CO2 only absorbs the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron wavelengths before re-emitting it (mostly) back into space.

I have strong doubts about the climate alarmists' idea that heat can be "trapped" by CO2, considering that it only absorbs a tiny fraction of the total spectrum, is only a tiny fraction of the total atmosphere, and only a tiny fraction of the radiation it absorbs isn't re-emitted back into space.

Sep 23, 2019
Paleogene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

there is no climate crisis.

Sep 23, 2019
Re-emitting this infra-red back into space: by Kordane

@granville583762
Is this True!
Does CO2
Absorb infra-red?
Then Does this CO2
Re-emit
This absorbed Infra-red
Radiatively
Into
This Vacuum of Space

Iirc
CO2
only absorbs
This 2.7
4.3
And 15 micron wavelengths
Before re-emitting it
Mostly
Back into space

I have strong doubts
About the climate alarmists idea
That heat can be
Trapped by CO2
Considering that it only absorbs
A tiny fraction of the total spectrum
Is only a tiny fraction
Of the total atmosphere
And only a tiny fraction
Of the radiation
It absorbs
Isn't re-emitted
Back into space

Sep 24, 2019
It matters not whether 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron wavelengths absorb then re-emit

Kordane> iirc, CO2 only absorbs the 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micron wavelengths before re-emitting it (mostly) back into space.

Kordane, you appear to have defined
This heat retention
In carbon dioxide molecules
Atoms increase their temperature on absorption of photons
Then decrease their temperature on re-emitting a mirror image of the original photon absorbed

This comes to our Quasi-Neutral Sage
Fore Kordane, as you are a newbie to this physiorg.org
CastroGiovanni, is this Quasi-Neutral Sage, in the Plasma Wars, with cantdrive

Sep 24, 2019
@Kordane
I've heard the complete opposite; that when CO2 concentration increases, it becomes increasingly less effective at trapping heat
1- you're listening to political sites and not reading the scientific literature, and this is painfully obvious considering your comments

2- see: Lacis et al regarding not only the above but also the known multiple GHG's affecting AGW

your arguments demonstrably prove you "accept" a very "particular conclusion/theory" which ignores the science for the sake of your beliefs, making you (again, demonstrably) a denier

.

in your own words - "I'm simply trying to EDUCATE you about basic logic and how to act like a real scientist"


Sep 28, 2019
@Kordane.
They're still "small" compared to the scale of the planet Earth (obviously), and that's why I make the point as to why you can't really equate the two. What happens on the small scale is not necessarily what happens on the large scale. That's basic logic, pal.
Haven't you come across the 'scaling' laws/techniques for analysis of systems, mate? The geophysics is the same at any scale; only the scale varies, not the geophysics per se. So your 'objections' are spurious/naive; and apparently biased by obvious denialist sources/spiels, as clearly indicated by your own words:
I get the impression sometimes that climate alarmists would happily see CO2 completely removed from the atmosphere, that all plant life dies as a result, and that we cease to survive as a species as a result. I've heard various analyses which suggest that the climate was a lot more volatile at lower concentrations of CO2.
No objective discourser would ever repeat such 'denialist crap'. Bad.