Human-caused climate change - what the scientists are actually saying

[Subduction Zone]

So you are now showing that you cannot seem to validate your position.

No, you never validated yours. Science is not done through YouTube videos. Videos can be valid if they are educational and are an attempt to instruct in known sciences, but if crazies want to refute well accepted science the way to do it is through the process of peer review. Not appealing to lay people that have no education in the science and only want to deny it. Are you not familiar with what creationists do at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not in areas where the science is evolving rapidly as with global warming and the Covid pandemic. It seems that the climate scientists are revising their timetable. The changes are accumulating faster than had been anticipated. The changing narrative reflects changes in the available relevant evidence. This is new ground for mankind.

Unfortunately you may be right. For the last forty years the middle of the road predictions have been right on the money. I am hoping that this latest spurt is little different than the "time of no global warming" that was ballyhooed so much be science deniers. In other words, I am not so unrealistically optimistic to think that AGW will end. I just want it to get back on its old already very concerning rise.

 

[wellwisher]

Introductory post:

Due to popular demand, I will show what the scientists are actually saying about human-caused climate change, and I will show that they seem to overwhelmingly be saying that there is no cause for alarm (meaning no reason to stop burning hydrocarbons for energy).

I will provide links to video recordings in this thread. The criteria I am using is that I have to actually be able to see and hear what they are saying from their own mouths, and they have to be providing a talk, presentation, discussion, or interview where they are covering the impact of climate change due to human activity; the video recording has to also provide their name, and it either has to provide their credentials, or I have to be able to find information to corroborate that they are subject matter experts.

The earth is warming slightly. It is about 1.5C over 100 years. That is quantified. The original hype was about the global warming. The marketing label changed to climate change, since the computer models were way over estimating future temperature, and people were losing interest in that bogeyman.

Climate change is more of a subjective marketing term, since anything can be called climate change; warmer or cooler,. drier or rainier, etc. El Niño and La Niña have impacted global climate for centuries and have been doing so since at least the 1600's. Fake news tries to blend this and man made together to give manmade more subjective worth, than it deserves. The term Climate change can hide ignorance behind subjectivity and hype, since it is not a quantitative variable and even local and global can get intermixed. A local thunderstorm is now climate change. This allow people to see climate change first hand, as though this is their first thunderstorm and the whole world has this.

That marketing trick is a subjective problem. But the real problem is, predicting the future has not been as successful as correlating historical temperature and CO2 data. Why is there still ice at the North Pole? The consensus of science told us this will soon be gone. Global warming and climate change is about observing and recording, which is done well. But future predictions is a different story. This is where the drum beat of doom and gloom and the bogeyman comes in. One has to spook the herd; North Pole will be gone and the oceans will rise, so even bad future predictions can appear like caring science. We give their bad future prediction a pass, like the weather man. Real science has accountability. How about we have the consensus make a series of predictions and if wrong we fire the entire consensus team and bring in a new team for a second opinion.

Dice and card science is good for correlating data. However, since it uses a black box, and is not based on reason. Therefore, any extrapolation from a dice and cards correlation is also not based exactly on reason. It is still a crap shoot and not real applied science. Like Evolution we can trace the past with great accuracy; species lineages, or temperate curves, but the future of both is fuzzy dice, beyond some type of change. It is this pseudo applied science, that is the most shaky, and is being supplemented with disinformation and hype.

If you go under the assumption we are seeing the impact of man made climate change, for the sake of argument, this is still the first time this has ever happened on earth. One data point of an event, can take any curve at any angle. You need two points to draw straight line and have the correct angle. The poor predictions with this one point, still in progress, are at the wrong angle, or else it would be more accurate. It would be like running with cold fusion after the first test and building giant factories before a second test.

On the other hand, natural climate change has many occurrences, even from different angles, and is therefore a safer and more valid science path. Yet the manmade crowd does it best to ignore natural and even make it taboo. It even tries to average the dynamic natural phenomena to see the man made, making manmade appears more dyamanic than it is. Nature is not static. Doing valid natural science makes you a denier. One data point of an occurrence is all we need if you have fake news hype.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The earth is warming slightly. It is about 1.5C over 100 years. That is quantified. The original hype was about the global warming. The marketing label changed to climate change, since the computer models were way over estimating future temperature, and people were losing interest in that bogeyman.

That is wrong. The rise in temperature has been very close to that predicted by experts all along. It was changed to "climate change" because the changes are not uniform around the world and may even go down a bit in some locales. For example right now western Europe is warming as are most other areas. But there is a possibility that melting of icesheets and other changes could cause the Gulf stream to quit flowing. If that happens Europe will have very very cold winters.

Climate change is more of a subjective marketing term, since anything can be called climate change; warmer or cooler,. drier or rainier, etc. El Niño and La Niña have impacted global climate for centuries and have been doing so since at least the 1600's. Fake news tries to blend this and man made together to give manmade more subjective worth, than it deserves. The term Climate change can hide ignorance behind subjectivity and hype, since it is not a quantitative variable and even local and global can get intermixed. A local thunderstorm is now climate change. This allow people to see climate change first hand, as though this is their first thunderstorm and the whole world has this.

Again no. The average temperature of the Earth has been going up. That is as you pointed out measurable. Warming is also an adding of energy to the environment and that can cause disruptions of weather patterns and more energetic storms. Just because you do not understand something is not a valid reason to oppose the science.

That marketing trick is a subjective problem. But the real problem is, predicting the future has not been as successful as correlating historical temperature and CO2 data. Why is there still ice at the North Pole? The consensus of science told us this will soon be gone. Global warming and climate change is about observing and recording, which is done well. But future predictions is a different story. This is where the drum beat of doom and gloom and the bogeyman comes in. One has to spook the herd; North Pole will be gone and the oceans will rise, so even bad future predictions can appear like caring science. We give their bad future prediction a pass, like the weather man. Real science has accountability. How about we have the consensus make a series of predictions and if wrong we fire the entire consensus team and bring in a new team for a second opinion.

Models predict that the ice will all melt in about ten years. It comes back in the winter, but the ice has also been generally following the predictions made. One type of graph that shows that is the Arctic sea ice volume death spiral. That graph measures how much ice is left, not just how much coverage there is since almost the entire area freezes over each winter.

Here is the same plot on a regular rectangular format. You can see that all of the ice is predicted to melt in September in about ten years from now:

Dice and card science is good for correlating data. However, since it uses a black box, and is not based on reason. Therefore, any extrapolation from a dice and cards correlation is also not based exactly on reason. It is still a crap shoot and not real applied science. Like Evolution we can trace the past with great accuracy; species lineages, or temperate curves, but the future of both is fuzzy dice, beyond some type of change. It is this pseudo applied science, that is the most shaky, and is being supplemented with disinformation and hype.

If you go under the assumption we are seeing the impact of man made climate change, for the sake of argument, this is still the first time this has ever happened on earth. One data point of an event, can take any curve at any angle. You need two points to draw straight line and have the correct angle. The poor predictions with this one point, still in progress, are at the wrong angle, or else it would be more accurate. It would be like running with cold fusion after the first test and building giant factories before a second test.

On the other hand, natural climate change has many occurrences, even from different angles, and is therefore a safer and more valid science path. Yet the manmade crowd does it best to ignore natural and even make it taboo. It even tries to average the dynamic natural phenomena to see the man made, making manmade appears more dyamanic than it is. Nature is not static. Doing valid natural science makes you a denier. One data point of an occurrence is all we need if you have fake news hype.

Alright that is all of the ignorance and nonsense that I can stand for now.

Instead of telling us how little that you know why don't you ever try to argue one point at a time?

 

[anotherneil]

I'd like for anyone posting to this thread to stick to the topic.

For those of you who are simply visiting this thread to learn about what the scientific community is saying and to see it for yourselves, note that those who are science naysayers or deniers, dismissive of what scientists are actually saying, and claiming to be on the side of science don't offer their own scientists to support their positions, which they could easily do if there were scientists supporting their views. I'm not stopping them from doing this & not only am I not stopping them from doing this, I'm inviting them to do this (provided it sticks to the thread topic, of course). They can even start their own threads with their own topic and content to discuss human-caused climate change.

Another thing they do is talk about peer reviewed sources being the ultimate go-to material for scientific truth, yet they don't seem to realize or understand that although "peer review" meant going to wealthy nobles to present their findings long ago, such as back during the Renaissance period, it is scientists who do both the writing and the reviewing of such material in the modern era.

All they have to do, if they want to contribute to this thread, is to do what I've been doing, am doing, and intend to continue to do, such as this (here's another scientist discussing the issue):

Chris Funk - PhD & professor (University of California, Santa Barbara)

 

[wellwisher]

That is wrong. The rise in temperature has been very close to that predicted by experts all along. It was changed to "climate change" because the changes are not uniform around the world and may even go down a bit in some locales. For example right now western Europe is warming as are most other areas. But there is a possibility that melting of icesheets and other changes could cause the Gulf stream to quit flowing. If that happens Europe will have very very cold winters.


Again no. The average temperature of the Earth has been going up. That is as you pointed out measurable. Warming is also an adding of energy to the environment and that can cause disruptions of weather patterns and more energetic storms. Just because you do not understand something is not a valid reason to oppose the science.


Models predict that the ice will all melt in about ten years. It comes back in the winter, but the ice has also been generally following the predictions made. One type of graph that shows that is the Arctic sea ice volume death spiral. That graph measures how much ice is left, not just how much coverage there is since almost the entire area freezes over each winter.

View attachment 93336

Here is the same plot on a regular rectangular format. You can see that all of the ice is predicted to melt in September in about ten years from now:
View attachment 93337

Alright that is all of the ignorance and nonsense that I can stand for now.

Instead of telling us how little that you know why don't you ever try to argue one point at a time?

The ice has been melting since the last ice age. Are you aware the glaciers were as far south as NYC just 20,000 years ago? The glaciers had already melt back thousand of miles, before some humans tried to take full credit.

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occurred about 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the Pleistocene epoch. At that time, global sea level was more than 400 feet lower than it is today, and glaciers covered approximately: 8% of Earth's surface. 25% of Earth's land area.

Today about 10% of the earth's landmass is covered by glaciers and the oceans are 400 feet higher. You guys are seeing melting but your primary cause explanation is more political science than earth science. That is an artifact of black box science and not rational science.

Water vapor has more than double the heat capacity of the two main gases in the atmosphere; nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon dioxide gas also has about half the heat capacity of water vapor. There is about 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, today. If we treat the atmosphere as an average, the 4% water in the atmosphere acts like 8% in terms of the total atmospheric heat capacity. As the water vapor content increase, due to warming, waters's heat capacity contribution increases more than by a linear relationship; see graph below. During an ice age, the cold air holds less water vapor making the entire atmosphere cool faster.

Below is the moisture carrying capacity of air as a function of temperature. One can notice how the slope is not linear but rather the slope increases with increasing temperature. The glacial ice can create an ice cooler buffer in terms of any temperature increase by keeping the water contribution, lower in the atmosphere; less total air heat capacity. Water vapor limitations in air is why the glacier melt is not as fast as originally thought. When the glacier started to melt 20,000 years ago, the ice box effect made the first melting much slower, with the rate rising with atmospheric temperature due to water's double heat capacity and more water in air as water content versus temperatures increase faster than just a linear relationship.

Water is also interesting in that liquid water expands when it freezes. Liquid water has a maximum density at 4C ,and will expand from there whether you heat it or cool it. Water is weird that way. Nearly all other liquids get denser as they cool and then become solid. If water was just another liquid, the cold air of the winter would freeze the Oceans over time. But the anomalous expansion behavior of water and ice prevents this.

As water gets colder heading toward 4C, it gets denser and sinks in the warmer water, with the warmer water rising. At 3C, since water get less dense and is now lighter than at 4C, the colder 3C water will float on the 4C water. The extra cold does not make it downward by normal convection, but can by radiation, which is slower and less effective. And as the ice forms and gets thicker, it will float no matter how cold it gets, with 90% below the surface. The density maximum at 4C and the expansion of ice seals the ocean from getting too cold. The ice build up as glaciers and not down as a frozen ocean.

On the other hand, heat also comes into the oceans from the ocean floor; heat vents and crustal boundaries. The heat capacity curve for liquid water is also different. It is more like a bowl shape with a minimum at 40C. As the hot vent water rises and cools, and the cool ocean water warms, via the vent, the total combined heat capacity lowers toward the minimum; 10C water heads toward 40C and 90C waterheads toward 40C. We get a beach sand effect that makes the water get warmer; temperature, than expected, if we assume a linear heat capacity curve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The ice has been melting since the last ice age. Are you aware the glaciers were as far south as NYC just 20,000 years ago? The glaciers had already melt back thousand of miles, before some humans tried to take full credit.



Today about 10% of the earth's landmass is covered by glaciers and the oceans are 400 feet higher. You guys are seeing melting but your primary cause explanation is more political science than earth science. That is an artifact of black box science and not rational science.

Water vapor has more than double the heat capacity of the two main gases in the atmosphere; nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon dioxide gas also has about half the heat capacity of water vapor. There is about 4% water vapor in the atmosphere, today. If we treat the atmosphere as an average, the 4% water in the atmosphere acts like 8% in terms of the total atmospheric heat capacity. As the water vapor content increase, due to warming, waters's heat capacity contribution increases more than by a linear relationship; see graph below. During an ice age, the cold air holds less water vapor making the entire atmosphere cool faster.

Below is the moisture carrying capacity of air as a function of temperature. One can notice how the slope is not linear but rather the slope increases with increasing temperature. The glacial ice can create an ice cooler buffer in terms of any temperature increase by keeping the water contribution, lower in the atmosphere; less total air heat capacity. Water vapor limitations in air is why the glacier melt is not as fast as originally thought. When the glacier started to melt 20,000 years ago, the ice box effect made the first melting much slower, with the rate rising with atmospheric temperature due to water's double heat capacity and more water in air as water content versus temperatures increase faster than just a linear relationship.

Water is also interesting in that liquid water expands when it freezes. Liquid water has a maximum density at 4C ,and will expand from there whether you heat it or cool it. Water is weird that way. Nearly all other liquids get denser as they cool and then become solid. If water was just another liquid, the cold air of the winter would freeze the Oceans over time. But the anomalous expansion behavior of water and ice prevents this.

As water gets colder heading toward 4C, it gets denser and sinks in the warmer water, with the warmer water rising. At 3C, since water get less dense and is now lighter than at 4C, the colder 3C water will float on the 4C water. The extra cold does not make it downward by normal convection, but can by radiation, which is slower and less effective. And as the ice forms and gets thicker, it will float no matter how cold it gets, with 90% below the surface. The density maximum at 4C and the expansion of ice seals the ocean from getting too cold. The ice build up as glaciers and not down as a frozen ocean.

On the other hand, heat also comes into the oceans from the ocean floor; heat vents and crustal boundaries. The heat capacity curve for liquid water is also different. It is more like a bowl shape with a minimum at 40C. As the hot vent water rises and cools, and the cool ocean water warms, via the vent, the total combined heat capacity lowers toward the minimum; 10C water heads toward 40C and 90C waterheads toward 40C. We get a beach sand effect that makes the water get warmer; temperature, than expected, if we assume a linear heat capacity curve.

If you want to be serous we need to go over this one point at a time. Please quit bringing up red herrings. We know why the glaciation ended. We know when the warming began and when it ended. This is a different topic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You guys are seeing melting but your primary cause explanation is more political science than earth science. That is an artifact of black box science and not rational science.

Anthropogenic global warming is a fact beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is unreasonable. It's faith-based and is contradicted by evidence. A critical thinker is somebody able to recognize a sound, compelling, evidenced argument and is also willing to change his mind upon seeing one. That hasn't happened for you.

Note that when I say faith-based, I don't mean related to your religious beliefs. Prevalent and harmful faith-based beliefs outside which are contradicted by evidence of religion include election hoax, lawfare, and anti-vaxxers. Relatively harmless faith-based beliefs include flat earth and moon landing hoax.

Belief by faith is always generates a logical fallacy - a conclusion that doesn't follow from any preceding argument (a non sequitur fallacy).

As I explained to you recently, it isn't necessary that you ever know that you are wrong to people who aren't affected by your beliefs and the decisions you make based in them. I explained who is at risk and why to you recently. It's the last property owners to come on board who will be harmed the most. You don't want to be that, but until you see the light, that's your trajectory.

My wife has a girlfriend in California whose homeowner insurance just doubled this year from about $2000 annually to about $4000 when she had to change carriers after hers announced that it would no longer be selling home insurance in California without giving a reason. She lives in the San Diego area, which has been spared serious wildfires, hurricanes, and tornadoes so far, but that is likely to change. If it does, property values will begin to fall as people recognize that her location is less desirable, and also that renting is safer than owning.

Incidentally, we're putting in a series of storage batteries (just made the pre-payment) now to gain grid independence. We will now have our own "grid." Presently, all of our harvested solar power coming from panels (we also heat water using the sun, but we use that here) is sent to the local power company from which we receive electricity, so when they are down, we go dark. Now we'll have 16 hours of power on site from two new panels NOT connected to the grid or sent to the utility. Unlike the rest of our system, which paid for itself years ago, this part will likely not pay for itself, but the benefit will likely be worth that cost, and being relatively utility-independent has got to increase the value of a home.

Anyway, good luck.

 

[wellwisher]

The Ice Ages began 2.4 million years ago and lasted until 11,500 years ago. During this time, the earth’s climate repeatedly changed between very cold periods, during which glaciers covered large parts of the world (see map below), and very warm periods during which many of the glaciers melted. The cold periods are called glacials (ice covering) and the warm periods are called interglacials. There were at least 17 cycles between glacial and interglacial periods. The glacial periods lasted longer than the interglacial periods. The last glacial period began about 100,000 years ago and lasted until 25,000 years ago. Today we are in a warm interglacial period.

During the last ice age glaciers covered almost one-third of Earth's land mass, with the result being that the oceans were about 400 feet (122 meters) lower than today. During the last global "warm spell," about 125,000 years ago, the seas were about 18 feet (5.5. meters) higher than they are now.

Sea levels declined to the lowest levels during stage 2 that occurred between 13,000 and 20,000 years ago. During this time, despite some minor short-term rise/fall events, sea levels fell from near modern sea levels to some 120 meters below present.

https://animations.geol.ucsb.edu/3_downloads/M2IceAge/aDeglacNoAmMovie/DeglaciationNoAm.mp4

What I do not understand is the oceans were 120 meters lower 13,000 years ago. That is a lot of ice. There must have been world wide floods Manmade is attributed with melting the glaciers so why isn't ocean rising in feet. One answer is the bulk of ice was already gone and what is left is not that significant. The video shows the last big melt down. We are near the end of that warming cycle.

Weather is about water. So are Ice Ages. Ice reflects sunlight, while liquid and water vapor absorb. Precipitation of all kinds; rain, sleet and snow, all predicate out around dust particles in the air; nucleation centers. As the glaciers melted, that dust build up like dirty snow piles at the end of the winter. These absorb more heat than pure snow. The dirty glacier melt faster. Dirty snow is a natural way to melt glaciers and allow the earth to warm slightly.

The Category 4 Hurricane in the Caribbean Sea, as we speak, is a large vortex of condensing water that is releasing energy via the phase change from vapor to liquid. This is energy of the change of state is fueling an increase in entropy; 2nd law. When water goes from vapor to liquid there is 1600 times loss of volume. The hurricane by condensing water is pulling a huge vacuum.

A hurricane has almost 250 million tons of water swirling around in it! That's 59 billion gallons of water.

 

[Subduction Zone]

https://animations.geol.ucsb.edu/3_downloads/M2IceAge/aDeglacNoAmMovie/DeglaciationNoAm.mp4

What I do not understand is the oceans were 120 meters lower 13,000 years ago. That is a lot of ice. There must have been world wide floods Manmade is attributed with melting the glaciers so why isn't ocean rising in feet. One answer is the bulk of ice was already gone and what is left is not that significant. The video shows the last big melt down. We are near the end of that warming cycle.

Weather is about water. So are Ice Ages. Ice reflects sunlight, while liquid and water vapor absorb. Precipitation of all kinds; rain, sleet and snow, all predicate out around dust particles in the air; nucleation centers. As the glaciers melted, that dust build up like dirty snow piles at the end of the winter. These absorb more heat than pure snow. The dirty glacier melt faster. Dirty snow is a natural way to melt glaciers and allow the earth to warm slightly.

The Category 4 Hurricane in the Caribbean Sea, as we speak, is a large vortex of condensing water that is releasing energy via the phase change from vapor to liquid. This is energy of the change of state is fueling an increase in entropy; 2nd law. When water goes from vapor to liquid there is 1600 times loss of volume. The hurricane by condensing water is pulling a huge vacuum.

Yes, the oceans were much lower during the last glaciation. It was about 122 meters or 400 feet lower. But no, the melting did not cause worldwide floods. There were some very local large scale floods, but nothing worldwide. Let's see if you can try to reason on your own why there were no worldwide floods when that ice melted and the seas rose.