Be Afraid, be very afraid

[metis]

All that is well and good, but pretty much off topic, as the drooling writer of the OP was raving on about something else entirely and conceded that climate change was real and unstoppable. Any thoughts on the rest of the insanity espoused in the OP?

I just cannot relate at any of the rest of the OP. Is there anything in it in particular that you'd like to get my opinion on? I'm giving discounts today.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

The GH effect is dominated by water vapor, not CO2 yes?
That's why the computer sims all depend 100% on simulating hypothetical feedback loops in atmospheric water vapor, NOT CO2- to achieve the Hollywood disaster results.

Ah I see... huh. So but going back to the cambrian, 500 million years ago that 7000 per 1,000,000 parts would be like breathing smog to us I guess, right?

 

[DLR]

All that is well and good, but pretty much off topic, as the drooling writer of the OP was raving on about something else entirely and conceded that climate change was real and unstoppable. Any thoughts on the rest of the insanity espoused in the OP?

You mean the part about gays and atheists causing the global warming etc.? Yeah, I'm mad about that too.

 

[YmirGF]

I just cannot relate at any of the rest of the OP. Is there anything in it in particular that you'd like to get my opinion on? I'm giving discounts today.

Let us take a step back and realize that these are King/Master religions - born when Kings/Strongmen ruled, Slaves/Servants got down on their knees, shaking with fear, swore undying loyalty(belief) and begged for his mercy and protection. Those who do not swear loyalty must be punished or cast out(Hence the loose talk of Hell) - very primitive and backward ideas
And so when things go bad, the multitude will turn to their religious leaders and ask why Master is punishing us and these leaders will point to the presence of Gays and Atheists as the cause. We know that it is already happening - Gays and Atheists are under attack in several islamic countries - in Nigeria Gays are being hunted and killed!. Once these two are killed, next in line are members of minority religions - a Slave may serve only one master - these people do not kneel to our master - and so they must be killed too

Again, this sounds like the writer of the OP is calling for a "jihad", if you will, against Muslims/Muslim countries and using Climate change as a segue to make it sound somewhat less insane

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah I see... huh. So but going back to the cambrian, 500 million years ago that 7000 per 1,000,000 parts would be like breathing smog to us I guess, right?

not at all, 8000 ppm is standard for submarines, entirely odorless, harmless.

Smog isn't CO2- smog is caused by particulates- which contribute to cooling not warming

I think CO2 is often mistaken for being 'dirty' or 'pollution' because of the word carbon...

by which Earth is inhabited by 'pollution' based life forms! nothing could be further from pollution

 

[Draka]

I never saw that movie. Should I?

The acting can be a bit off and some moments are corny, but it's okay. They kind of give it away, as to what is happening, towards the beginning but, of course, the characters don't really grasp it until further on. It's basically a Mother Nature strikes back kind of thing.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, right...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...d-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

Who wrote that?

"James M. Taylor is vice president for external relations and senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001-2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism. Taylor writes a weekly column for Forbes which appears on the magazine's Forbes.com website."

https://www.heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2] More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.[3][4][5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet[7] and that human activity is driving it,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9]"

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

Probably no duping here.

Why would a guy who makes a living lobbying the government on behalf of companies ever misrepresent facts from NASA in order to support a false conclusion when NASA itself interprets its own results very differently?

"Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.
“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Claire Parkinson, author of the study and climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.”

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddar...l-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

Nope... all made up to give power in the hands of politicians; a vast conspiracy perpetuated by millions of people...

 

[BSM1]

Who wrote that?

"James M. Taylor is vice president for external relations and senior fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Taylor is the former managing editor (2001-2014) of Environment & Climate News, a national monthly publication devoted to sound science and free-market environmentalism. Taylor writes a weekly column for Forbes which appears on the magazine's Forbes.com website."

https://www.heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Chicago. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, education, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2] More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial.[3][4][5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus that global warming poses a significant danger to the planet[7] and that human activity is driving it,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9]"

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

Probably no duping here.

Why would a guy who makes a living lobbying the government on behalf of companies ever misrepresent facts from NASA in order to support a false conclusion when NASA itself interprets its own results very differently?

"Sea ice increases in Antarctica do not make up for the accelerated Arctic sea ice loss of the last decades, a new NASA study finds. As a whole, the planet has been shedding sea ice at an average annual rate of 13,500 square miles (35,000 square kilometers) since 1979, the equivalent of losing an area of sea ice larger than the state of Maryland every year.
“Even though Antarctic sea ice reached a new record maximum this past September, global sea ice is still decreasing,” said Claire Parkinson, author of the study and climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “That’s because the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.”

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddar...l-sea-ice-diminishing-despite-antarctic-gains

Nope... all made up to give power in the hands of politicians; a vast conspiracy perpetuated by millions of people...

Read the entire article! Especially about the gains in Antarctic sew ice. You've been had.

 

[dust1n]

Read the entire article! Especially about the gains in Antarctic sew ice. You've been had.

I know. I've been had by believing NASA when they blatantly state that the losses in Arctic ice is much greater than the gains in Antarctic ice. I think I'll believe the guys who appear to have no comprehension on the data they try to handle, instead. Good luck!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

not at all, 8000 ppm is standard for submarines, entirely odorless, harmless.

Smog isn't CO2- smog is caused by particulates- which contribute to cooling not warming

I think CO2 is often mistaken for being 'dirty' or 'pollution' because of the word carbon...

by which Earth is inhabited by 'pollution' based life forms! nothing could be further from pollution

It does eventually reach that level though, like I know that it is dangerous when it leaks in houses.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It does eventually reach that level though, like I know that it is dangerous when it leaks in houses.

CO- carbon monoxide poisoning yes- good time of year to check your CO detectors!

We breath out 40,000 ppm carbon dioxide, so with a bag over your head - sure it can eventually asphyxiate you- but by this measure, H20 could be called a far deadlier poison/ pollutant could it not?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

CO- carbon monoxide poisoning yes- good time of year to check your CO detectors!

We breath out 40,000 ppm carbon dioxide, so with a bag over your head - sure it can eventually asphyxiate you- but by this measure, H20 could be called a far deadlier poison/ pollutant could it not?

Oh duh.. CO and CO2.. monoxide and dioxide, 1 and 2

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I know. I've been had by believing NASA when they blatantly state that the losses in Arctic ice is much greater than the gains in Antarctic ice. I think I'll believe the guys who appear to have no comprehension on the data they try to handle, instead. Good luck!

Dustin, the planet has been losing ice since the last glacial maximum about 19000 years ago- when I'd be sitting under about a mile of it right now. All without a single SUV to anger Gaia, pray this doesn't reverse any time soon or we will have a real problem to worry about!

 

[serp777]

When the world was a lot warmer it worked out pretty good for the dinosaurs and plants. Pretty sure there wasn't as many arctic and desert climates back then, and the world was thriving. So with that in mind, the whole world becoming tropical once more might not be the worst thing for biological life. It might not be the best thing for us, because maybe the humidity would be too much, but dinosaur type animals will do fine.

You have to remember its much more complicated than that. For instance water patterns could change such that india's monsoons become permanent and prevent any crops from growing while the grain belt around the rest of the world becomes a parched desert. This would mean the starvation of billions and it would likely lead to nuclear war as nations fight for control over food. Furthermore many large cities would become unfeasible since they would be in 3 feet of water. It depends on many complicated factors.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You have to remember its much more complicated than that. For instance water patterns could change such that india's monsoons become permanent and prevent any crops from growing while the grain belt around the rest of the world becomes a parched desert. This would mean the starvation of billions and it would likely lead to nuclear war as nations fight for control over food. Furthermore many large cities would become unfeasible since they would be in 3 feet of water. It depends on many complicated factors.

Yes, and as I start to look at the details on this topic, that becomes apparent really quick. But if this climate change thing is really real, that does really seem to mean that all kinds of drastic changes will take effect.

One problem is that weather hasn't been scientifically measured all that long. We have 200,000 years of history and we only started keeping track in the last century. Now in that 200,000 years how many ups and downs have there been exactly? No one really knows for sure right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You have to remember its much more complicated than that. For instance water patterns could change such that india's monsoons become permanent and prevent any crops from growing while the grain belt around the rest of the world becomes a parched desert. This would mean the starvation of billions and it would likely lead to nuclear war as nations fight for control over food. Furthermore many large cities would become unfeasible since they would be in 3 feet of water. It depends on many complicated factors.

all from a couple extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air! no wonder the theory relies on computer simulations

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, and as I start to look at the details on this topic, that becomes apparent really quick. But if this climate change thing is really real, that does really seem to mean that all kinds of drastic changes will take effect.

One problem is that weather hasn't been scientifically measured all that long. We have 200,000 years of history and we only started keeping track in the last century. Now in that 200,000 years how many ups and downs have there been exactly? No one really knows for sure right?

Very true, we don't know much, but we know the Ordovician ice age had >4000 ppm CO2, that vast ice sheets covered much of the globe, and melted again, without a single SUV-

the only thing close to an accurate measurement is the satellite record, dating back 35 years, the warmest year being half way- in 1998. And that no statistically significant warming has occurred since.

We also know that humans have blamed each other for bad weather since the dawn of civilization, it was called global cooling when I was young, and leaders have always asked for sacrifices to appease the weather Gods. switching scary masks and dances for computer simulations does not make this superstition any more scientific

 

[Draka]

Yes, and as I start to look at the details on this topic, that becomes apparent really quick. But if this climate change thing is really real, that does really seem to mean that all kinds of drastic changes will take effect.

One problem is that weather hasn't been scientifically measured all that long. We have 200,000 years of history and we only started keeping track in the last century. Now in that 200,000 years how many ups and downs have there been exactly? No one really knows for sure right?

A lot of information has been garnered through ice core samples. So we really can get measurements for things from much further back than you may imagine.

 

[serp777]

all from a couple extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air! no wonder the theory relies on computer simulations

Its not just Co2. Its methane from cows and permafrost. Water vapor is another excellent greenhouse gas.Furthermore don't underestimate the impact that a "small" change can have. Computers work because of doping, consider this--

"In intrinsic crystalline silicon, there are approximately 5×10^22 atoms/cm³. Doping concentration for silicon semiconductors may range anywhere from 10^13 cm−3 to 10^18 cm−3. "

So the amount of phosphorous or boron used in doping is orders of magnitude less than silicon itself, but this allows you to modify the bandgap enough to enable transistors to work by creating N and P regions; all computing is therefore possible. The point is that the climate is the same way--small changes to the atmosphere can cause radical temperature variations to occur due to the fact that the climate system is very sensitive to initial conditions. Its also well known that every year has been one of the hottest years on record for the last 30 years. Scientists have also found a causal relationship between green house gases and temperature by looking at ice cores and comparing temperature to the quantity of greenhouse gases and accounting for other effects like the sun.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Its not just Co2. Its methane from cows and permafrost. Water vapor is another excellent greenhouse gas.Furthermore don't underestimate the impact that a "small" change can have. Computers work because of doping, consider this--

"In intrinsic crystalline silicon, there are approximately 5×10^22 atoms/cm³. Doping concentration for silicon semiconductors may range anywhere from 10^13 cm−3 to 10^18 cm−3. "

So the amount of phosphorous or boron used in doping is orders of magnitude less than silicon itself, but this allows you to modify the bandgap enough to enable transistors to work by creating N and P regions; all computing is therefore possible. The point is that the climate is the same way--small changes to the atmosphere can cause radical temperature variations to occur due to the fact that the climate system is very sensitive to initial conditions. Its also well known that every year has been one of the hottest years on record for the last 30 years. Scientists have also found a causal relationship between green house gases and temperature by looking at ice cores and comparing temperature to the quantity of greenhouse gases and accounting for other effects like the sun.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Yes, the entire theory relies 100% on hypothetical computer simulated feedback loops involving water vapor NOT CO2, not even climastrologers claim that our adding 1.25 molecules extra CO2 to 10000 of air can possibly have any significant direct effect- even though this is strongly suggested in pop science

Yes we have found a causal relationship - the only causal correlation ever observed between CO2 and temps, and CO2 levels unambiguously lag temp fluctuations by about 900 years.
This fact alone is strong evidence that the opposite causation does not occur to any significant degree, or we have a runaway feedback loop without a single SUV

The infamous hockey stick chart- isn't it curious that GISS- the Goddard Institute for SPACE STUDIES invariably ignores the satellite record- by far the most accurate measurement we have of global temps- and prefers to stitch together surface data from 1880 to present! Drive from a field in rural Illinois to the weather station at O'Hare airport and you will physically feel the several degree rise of urban heat effect. If long standing land stations were not showing vastly increased temps from 100 years ago, that would be a very scary thing indeed!

And for oceans.. cmon serp... do you seriously think we have reliable data for an average global ocean temperature- accurate to within a fraction of a degree as relevant here- from 1880?!

Do a little research on Hanson- head of GISS, he is a pretty extreme environmental activist, hardly an impartial scientist.

Surface data can literally be used to come up with anything you like. Again the only thing remotely close to an accurate scientific measurement is the sat. data from '79 on. In which 1998 remains the warmest year- and no statistically significant warming has occurred since. no way around this. Even within the IPCC, the debate is about the cause of the 'hiatus' in the temp rise.