The 2018 UN Climate Report

[babe]

When people throw out responses to a man like Patrick Michaels like Red and many of his linked authorities have done, I have to ask for "proof". In one little era of my life, I used to sit in seminars where scientific papers were the show of the day. I'm used to having skeptics asking whatever hard questions they can bring to the discussion. Used to be, you could do that without being called some kind of socially-unacceptable "criminal" guilty of ruining the whole world.

So I listened to the whole interview on the Levin show. I heard it on the radio, too, more or less. I have seen it laid out in pieces by more than a dozen other "scientists" who do in fact have some credentials. Yes, he is contrarian to the pushed narrative in todays political world. But nothing that he advanced in his argument has been "proven" wrong on any kind of scientific basis. The respondents who criticize him may reiterate the "facts" they have obtained, but they have not adequately answered his assertions that call those conclusions or "facts" into question.

yes, the models are heavily "parameterized". But the models are getting better as some of those "parameters" guessed at are being replaced with actual data.

We will not know the cause of our 1.9F (0.9C) increased warmth within our lifetimes because we are in long-term cycles of natural change that are an order (10X) at least larger than our observed "warming". It will take a thousand years to see if this is part of the normal Ice Age/Interglacial Warm cycle or not.

The big Red scare is in fact a politically useful abuse of actual "Science" that we should reject, now.

If we are in a major climate change, the right question to ask and answer is what we need to do about it...… I can absolutely "guanandamntee" that the "right" thing to do is not change our national governments' organization or fund a global cartel of megalomaniacal people managers.

I'm a little puzzled about the politics of the "oil industry" in opposing climate alarmism. The Rockefeller mantra has always been to own the supply, limit production, raise prices, and tax the hell outta the people. What's this "oil industry" lobby represent, anyway.....? some kind of free market folks who still hope to compete in the marketplace.

Pretty sure the Rockefellers and other major cartelists wanna burn that village of "idiots".

 

[babe]

You fell for that fake news? Lol

So you missed another sarcastic joke? Didn't actually understand what someone said?

ahhhhh….. not so funny.

 

[fishonjazz]

So you missed another sarcastic joke? Didn't actually understand what someone said?

ahhhhh….. not so funny.

Oh you were joking about trump being smart and agree that there is no way he could have a high iq.

Wow, we actually agree about something. Right on

 

[Red]

The big Red scare is in fact a politically useful abuse of actual "Science" that we should reject, now.

C'mon. Must you name the scientific consensus on climate change after me?? How silly, it's a scientific consensus, not "the big Red scare". For heaven sakes, I'm not even the only person on this forum that is interested in climate change and global warming. But, I suppose since I started this thread, and if it pleases you to be silly this way.

Look, scientific consensus has been wrong before. Since I collect meteorites, I am reminded of one example where "the people" were right, and the "scientists" were wrong. French peasants insisted they had seen rocks fall from the sky. French scientists opined that peasants lacked education, and anyway, how could stones fall from the sky? Of course, it only took one 1803 fall, in France, witnessed by many scientists, to turn the tide. Today we call these sky rocks meteorites, and they represent our cheapest obtained planetary samples from outside the Earth.

I am not sure, in this instance, that all these climate scientists are wrong. Although I agree with you that it is likely not inaccurate to think of us as living in a warming interval within a greater ice age. We know the Ice Age as the Pleistocene, and we call the era since the ice last retreated as the Holocene. Now, some geologists prefer to refer to the Anthropocene as our present-most era, when humans have become a dominant form of life, and have attained the power to influence the climate on Earth. I don't know if we are really in a warming interval in a greater ice age, but I do believe we are influencing the climate in the direction of greater warmth. And the greatest effects of that warming trend is actually occurring in the polar regions. Many archaeological discoveries are also being made as a result of the accelerated melting of mountain glaciers, in both Europe, and North America.

 

[babe]

Here's my short list of stuff we don't know or can't explain at the present time, regarding earth climate/climate change.

1. The cycle of influence in the 65 Million year rotation of our solar system around the galaxy, and the "climate" we encounter in that cycle, due perhaps to our changing position in regard to large-scale variations in particle and radiative impacts on our upper atmosphere. We see an example of such impacts during our solar cycles, episodic variations in radiation and particle emissions, which we do correlate with weather changes on a 22-year cycle. The solar cycle is significant enough to require us to adapt our data somehow to remove that source of variation from our graphs and charts attempting to track greenhouse gas concentrations and climate.....but do we???/ nah. It just gets "too complicated" for inclusion, so we choose to ignore it. lol.

2. The cycle of internal changes in earth heat generation from nuclear physics. Lots of heavy stuff in the earth's molten core.... not just "Iron" really. Most of the heavy elements.... Uranium and Thorium for example. Well known fact that Uranium fission is impressively dependent on a chain reaction. We know we have plumes of hotter stuff coming up, melting their way up through the crust, all the time. We know we have epochs where volcanism and plate tectonics accelerate tremendously, interspersed with ages of calmer, slower action. We are in one of the slower phases, but are we getting hotter from increasing action? Nobody has even tried to answer that.

3. Stored crustal/oceanic heat fluxes. Non-atmospheric cycles of heat near the surface. To separate this from (2) above, let's just consider stores from atmospheric or ocean current action that convert to surface or near-surface heat. The big factor in play here, perhaps, is ocean temps at depth. During ice ages, the coldest, densest water (4C) actually settles to the bottoms of all our oceans, along with stuff like D2O or isotopically heavy water. That "layer" at depth actually is most of the volume of the ocean..... and most of the heat in the ocean. I mean, it's more heat per gram than what's in the ice shelfs off Antarctica.

I suspect our 100,000 year ice age cycle is the result, for the greater part, of this cycle. When our oceans begin to warm up at the end of the ice ages, there must be a corresponding change in atmospheric moisture.

4. Atmospheric moisture as a counter-cycle source acting in opposition to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Water in a heat sink for radiative energy, too.

During Ice ages, with cooler atmospheric temps assumed, there will be less humidity. Most ice sheets are precipitation deserts. Yes, it snows. But the water settled isn't any rainforest sort of gauge-rocker. The amount of water in the air is less than temperate values. Stores less heat. Ice shines white, the radiative inputs are radiated back out.... so things will stay cooler.... until something changes somewhere else. How will an Ice Age ever end???? Oceans at depth get colder, polar and elevated areas become ice mirrors.

What is the 100,000 cycle that tilts things back to warmer???

Well, ice on land is wetter than deserts. When enough land is covered it reaches a point where the ice and lakes begin to increase overall atmospheric humidity, and increase the heat retained in our lower atmosphere.

Well, enough for now.

 

[Alfalfa]

Here's my short list of stuff we don't know or can't explain at the present time, regarding earth climate/climate change.

1. The cycle of influence in the 65 Million year rotation of our solar system around the galaxy, and the "climate" we encounter in that cycle, due perhaps to our changing position in regard to large-scale variations in particle and radiative impacts on our upper atmosphere. We see an example of such impacts during our solar cycles, episodic variations in radiation and particle emissions, which we do correlate with weather changes on a 22-year cycle. The solar cycle is significant enough to require us to adapt our data somehow to remove that source of variation from our graphs and charts attempting to track greenhouse gas concentrations and climate.....but do we???/ nah. It just gets "too complicated" for inclusion, so we choose to ignore it. lol.

2. The cycle of internal changes in earth heat generation from nuclear physics. Lots of heavy stuff in the earth's molten core.... not just "Iron" really. Most of the heavy elements.... Uranium and Thorium for example. Well known fact that Uranium fission is impressively dependent on a chain reaction. We know we have plumes of hotter stuff coming up, melting their way up through the crust, all the time. We know we have epochs where volcanism and plate tectonics accelerate tremendously, interspersed with ages of calmer, slower action. We are in one of the slower phases, but are we getting hotter from increasing action? Nobody has even tried to answer that.

3. Stored crustal/oceanic heat fluxes. Non-atmospheric cycles of heat near the surface. To separate this from (2) above, let's just consider stores from atmospheric or ocean current action that convert to surface or near-surface heat. The big factor in play here, perhaps, is ocean temps at depth. During ice ages, the coldest, densest water (4C) actually settles to the bottoms of all our oceans, along with stuff like D2O or isotopically heavy water. That "layer" at depth actually is most of the volume of the ocean..... and most of the heat in the ocean. I mean, it's more heat per gram than what's in the ice shelfs off Antarctica.

I suspect our 100,000 year ice age cycle is the result, for the greater part, of this cycle. When our oceans begin to warm up at the end of the ice ages, there must be a corresponding change in atmospheric moisture.

4. Atmospheric moisture as a counter-cycle source acting in opposition to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Water in a heat sink for radiative energy, too.

During Ice ages, with cooler atmospheric temps assumed, there will be less humidity. Most ice sheets are precipitation deserts. Yes, it snows. But the water settled isn't any rainforest sort of gauge-rocker. The amount of water in the air is less than temperate values. Stores less heat. Ice shines white, the radiative inputs are radiated back out.... so things will stay cooler.... until something changes somewhere else. How will an Ice Age ever end???? Oceans at depth get colder, polar and elevated areas become ice mirrors.

What is the 100,000 cycle that tilts things back to warmer???

Well, ice on land is wetter than deserts. When enough land is covered it reaches a point where the ice and lakes begin to increase overall atmospheric humidity, and increase the heat retained in our lower atmosphere.

Well, enough for now.

There are plenty of places where you can debate these issues if you're truly interested (I know you're not). I encourage you to check the many science oriented forums on Reddit. All of your points have been responded to again and again.

 

[DutchJazzer]

it is pretty simple litmus test. if people are fearmongering cus of some big problem, and they suggest the solution is (more) government. you know they are full of **** or just plain evil POS

 

[babe]

C'mon. Must you name the scientific consensus on climate change after me?? How silly, it's a scientific consensus, not "the big Red scare". For heaven sakes, I'm not even the only person on this forum that is interested in climate change and global warming. But, I suppose since I started this thread, and if it pleases you to be silly this way.

Look, scientific consensus has been wrong before. Since I collect meteorites, I am reminded of one example where "the people" were right, and the "scientists" were wrong. French peasants insisted they had seen rocks fall from the sky. French scientists opined that peasants lacked education, and anyway, how could stones fall from the sky? Of course, it only took one 1803 fall, in France, witnessed by many scientists, to turn the tide. Today we call these sky rocks meteorites, and they represent our cheapest obtained planetary samples from outside the Earth.

I am not sure, in this instance, that all these climate scientists are wrong. Although I agree with you that it is likely not inaccurate to think of us as living in a warming interval within a greater ice age. We know the Ice Age as the Pleistocene, and we call the era since the ice last retreated as the Holocene. Now, some geologists prefer to refer to the Anthropocene as our present-most era, when humans have become a dominant form of life, and have attained the power to influence the climate on Earth. I don't know if we are really in a warming interval in a greater ice age, but I do believe we are influencing the climate in the direction of greater warmth. And the greatest effects of that warming trend is actually occurring in the polar regions. Many archaeological discoveries are also being made as a result of the accelerated melting of mountain glaciers, in both Europe, and North America.

It's humor, Red. Silly, maybe.

OK, so heat is "Red" in the infrared sense. And since we've begun calling conservatives "Red States" it could be that climate change is an attempt to scare the "Reds". Used to mean commies, but who cares. Words mean what we mean when we say them, and anyone who wants to understand what we say needs to know what we mean by the words we choose. But we're always changing meanings.... so here we are.

and I don't go so far as to say the scientists are wrong about CO2 exactly. or the 0.9C. Or the sea-level/ice mass equation. Or the fact of methane being released from areas formerly under ice, and such.

I have different opinions about a lot of stuff where I occasionally notice something that's not getting attention. It's what I live for.... it's my pathetic little chosen life.... lol.

It's the political use of selected "facts", with the determination not to hear anything that doesn't suit the desired narrative.

I believe, for example, that in the formation of the earth, the elements present included lots of hydrogen and carbon in excess of available oxygen. Our first atmosphere was carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, now largely sedimented in deposits of gypsum and carbonate rock. Until, and unless, photosynthetic organisms were placed here, we would never have achieved an atmosphere with enough oxygen to sustain animal life. Could such organism have just "happened"? Some folks want to believe it that way, and I suppose it must have happened somewhere in time and space, but no one can truthfully say we don't have a Johnny Appleseed sort of "God" doing some seeding of some planets, either. I just say it's possible, and irrelevant. To have to believe a certain way to be acceptable to society is not acceptable.

So anyway, even if we have huge amounts of non-biological reduced carbon resources, it doesn't mean we have to burn stuff to stay warm or productive, really.

We have more available energy in deuterium in our oceans, lakes, ice caps, rivers, and aquifers. There is not a nation on planet earth that could not tap that source.

I guess it all boils down to my way of actually detesting the idea that politicians should never let a crisis go to waste failing to advance their agenda. I have my own agenda. I just like people to be prosperous and free.

 

[Deleted member 365]

I think one of the main issues here is that climate change is such a big issue. It’s not just an adjustment in driving fuel efficient cars, but in a complete lifestyle change that most if not all of us aren’t ready for.

However, i do think there are things we can do that would be steps in the right direction.

For instance:

1. Join the Paris climate accord.
2. Promote family planning rather than abstinence nonsense. There’s no reason why parents should have 3+ kids anymore. It’s irresponsible.
3. Heavily invest in green tech. Trump and his cult following promote insane and costly ideas like Berlin like border walls across the south and space Air Force. Why not invest in green tech instead?
4. Why not stick with the Obama requirement for all cars to meet higher fuel efficient standards?
5. The media needs to stop this “both sides” debate, as if rhetoric of right wing pundits should be treated with the same respect as climate change scientists. Just today on MTP Chuck Todd had on a Koch employee who spewed climate change denial. Nothing is to be gained here. And by placing this person on the show and giving her a platform, it gives unwarranted legitimacy to an idiot rather than an expert.

At some point, shouldn’t expertise matter again in our country?

 

[babe]

There are plenty of places where you can debate these issues if you're truly interested (I know you're not). I encourage you to check the many science oriented forums on Reddit. All of your points have been responded to again and again.

I've heard of them. I have more fun here. I doubt they've settled the questions.

I doubt Thriller thinks there are any questions he can't instruct fully, as is his habit I suppose in his classes.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I think one of the main issues here is that climate change is such a big issue. It’s not just an adjustment in driving fuel efficient cars, but in a complete lifestyle change that most if not all of us aren’t ready for. rable rable blah blah blah im stupid blah blah blah rable rable rbale

funny how the ef tinvents problems that only big governments can sovlve.

throughout history governments have been inefficient as ****. the only thing government has been efficient with is genocide!

every single problem the left sees can only be solved by big government. you know what would solve this non existent global cooling(forgot whta it is caleld nowadays because it changed prediction and names so often) is a genocide on a global scale. gee govenrments are good at that!

stop with this stupid fearmongering.

new york should have been gone by now rgight! yet it is still there.
there should have been world hunger. yet americans are fatter than ever
all the predictions where FALSE! **** your psuedoscience

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I'm not a climatologist or have the kind of background that I could read all 1000 pages of this latest US assessment, and comprehend it all. I have to depend on the bullet points and on the summary interpretation offered by the scientists from our federal agencies who did contribute to the report. When I see that the overwhelming percentage of scientists who should know agree that human activity is most responsible for the degree of ongoing global warming, I do trust that that is the case.

I'm not qualified enough to have an opinion either so I'm left respecting current consensus. I have read one of the IPCC reports back in college before this became a cause. I was pretty unbiased then, except a naive bias to accept it all at face value. Then I saw how agenda driven it was - it is agenda driven, by the scientists own words - and I saw the obvious flaws. They even told us the flaws. And climatologists continue finding flaws and proposing revised estimates. The IPCC has continuously been proven to overhype, and it is known as a hype hype machine at its founding mission statement.

I don't question what climatologists tell us is certain, it's not my place to question that. What I can question is the doomsday scenario thrown in our face, as well as the notion that CO2 will be greater than what every other factor known and unknown will do. CO2 vs the sun. Who you placing your money on in that fight?

That's not my complaint, just an attempt at providing common ground. I have no problem with the science or even if it turns out wrong. I've read some of the studies on solar radiation, sun spots, what have you and how that cycle cant account for temperature differential since the late 1970's IIRC. Those seemed to make sense.

My beef is with the fearmongering, doomsday stuff. That is how you run a campaign, how to throw it in people's faces enough that "spread a lie long enough and it becomes true". Results of that will happen through time but in the meantime we will be stuck with the fighting it causes instead of solutions.

I also get annoyed by the leftist, anti-oil company crowd who complained about their "subsidies" for decades (one is paying them to extract methane from old mine shafts and caves, a GHG with 37x the radiating effect of CO2) and now they want to subsidize EOR? The politicians tried to make us pay them billions to sequester carbon by doing the same damn thing they already do to squeeze the last dying drop out of a well. The difference being they currently buy CO2 and pump it into the ground to pressurize vs us paying them more to do it by earning carbon credits, a damn lucrative system already. Don't tell me for years you (not you) are against this crony capitalism and then force the same damn thing down everybody's throats.

Billionaire Elon Musk's company recently reported quarterly earnings showing about $200 million on the credits they've generated. Annualized that out, bad accounting but back of the napkin, and we are paying a billionaire $800,000,000 a year so he can produce a whopping 200,000 vehicles for rich people. Who pays that $3,500 subsidy plus the federal one? The working class paying a rich white guy $3,500 when they buy their new Hyundai Elantra so that privileged person can buy a fancy new toy at a discount.

Poor people carry the burden of this fear mongering. I don't like that.