Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Malf, I suggest you make more cogent comments without the implied slur.

I have known the figure for a long time, except that it used to be 0.8C, but then the climate scientists found a new way of analysing the datas which added on an extra 0.2C

David
By ‘noise’ I was referring to everything else in your post, not the 1.0 figure.
 
Seriously – how deluded and gullible are people who subscribe to this nonsense ?

“32 years and billions of wasted dollars later the best they can come up with is fake data, fake graphs, a child advocate who dropped out of school…”
Rosco Mac

1. I have a million molecules of ordinary air – how many do you think are CO2 ? (We should all know there are less than 400.)

2. I have a million molecules of ordinary air how many do you think are methane ? (We should all know there are less than 2.)

3. Why do you think that such insignificant amounts of stable gases can cause the temperature of the remaining 999,958 molecules of air to rise by any significant amount?

The alarmists are seriously deluded. The IPCC, established in 1988 was charged with establishing that mankind was causing global warming by emitting tiny amounts of a stable non flammable gas.

32 years and billions of wasted dollars later they best they can come up with is fake data, fake graphs, a child advocate who dropped out of school and the ridiculous claim that today’s children from wealthy countries suffer climate degradation worse than child sex slavery or the equivalent of forced labour in the “salt mines” and the hyping of the misery of those who have lost possessions or, worse, their lives due to completely natural disasters.

All in the name of how many failed attempts to overthrow democracy, introduce a regressive carbon tax, and probably prepare to remove a large proportion of the human race from the planet permanently.

Seriously – how deluded and gullible are people who subscribe to this nonsense ?

Of course it’s a scam !
 
Seriously – how deluded and gullible are people who subscribe to this nonsense ?

“32 years and billions of wasted dollars later the best they can come up with is fake data, fake graphs, a child advocate who dropped out of school…”
Rosco Mac

1. I have a million molecules of ordinary air – how many do you think are CO2 ? (We should all know there are less than 400.)

2. I have a million molecules of ordinary air how many do you think are methane ? (We should all know there are less than 2.)

3. Why do you think that such insignificant amounts of stable gases can cause the temperature of the remaining 999,958 molecules of air to rise by any significant amount?

The alarmists are seriously deluded. The IPCC, established in 1988 was charged with establishing that mankind was causing global warming by emitting tiny amounts of a stable non flammable gas.

32 years and billions of wasted dollars later they best they can come up with is fake data, fake graphs, a child advocate who dropped out of school and the ridiculous claim that today’s children from wealthy countries suffer climate degradation worse than child sex slavery or the equivalent of forced labour in the “salt mines” and the hyping of the misery of those who have lost possessions or, worse, their lives due to completely natural disasters.

All in the name of how many failed attempts to overthrow democracy, introduce a regressive carbon tax, and probably prepare to remove a large proportion of the human race from the planet permanently.

Seriously – how deluded and gullible are people who subscribe to this nonsense ?

Of course it’s a scam !
Of course. The real goal behind this hysteria is communist slavery. : https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

https://www.technocracy.news/climat...e-behind-warming-scare-redistribution-wealth/

https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...mmunism_best_for_fighting_global_warming.html

http://www.americanfreedomunion.com/climate-changes-hidden-agenda-communism/
 
1. I have a million molecules of ordinary air – how many do you think are CO2 ? (We should all know there are less than 400.)

2. I have a million molecules of ordinary air how many do you think are methane ? (We should all know there are less than 2.)

3. Why do you think that such insignificant amounts of stable gases can cause the temperature of the remaining 999,958 molecules of air to rise by any significant amount?
I don't think that is strictly a valid way to think about the problem because heat energy has to pass through a huge depth of air on its way back into space.

I go mainly on the fact that CO2 is a far less effective 'greenhouse' gas than water vapour, and also on the fact that the CO2 concentration varied over geological time. I also suspect there is a powerful feedback loop - raise the temperature by a small amount, and more water is evaporated from the oceans, and therefore more clouds form. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space and cool the planet.

BTW I put greenhouse in quotes, because greenhouses work in a quite different way. Sunlight warms the soil in the greenhouse, which in turn warms the air above it. Without the greenhouse, the hot air would escape by convection (hot air rises), with the greenhouse it can't!

Above all, the temperature record is remarkably flat - 0.8C - 1.0C in 140 years is minute.

David
 
Here's a few comments from Dr Patrick Moore speaking at the Oceans and Wildlife Subcommittee hearing on May 22nd, 2019.

“First of all, there is no hard evidence that CO2 has anything to do with the changing temperature of the Earth’s climate. Secondly, CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth.

“All the carbon in all carbon based life … came from carbon dioxide, in the air and the water. Carbon dioxide has been declining steadily for the last 150 million years to its lowest level in the history of life on earth, at the height of the last glaciation — 180 ppm. The reason for this is that life itself has sucked the carbon out of the system and put it into the sediments as fossil fuels, but much more importantly as carbonaceous rocks, a fancy term for limestone. That’s where all the carbon went and we, thankfully, are putting some of the CO2 back into the air that was sucked out by life over the millennia and are restoring a balance to the global carbon cycle.

“At 150 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere plants die. They don’t just need carbon dioxide to survive, they need a certain level of it, just like we need a certain level of oxygen, to survive.

“Virtually all commercial greenhouse growers enrich the atmosphere in their greenhouse with between two to three times the level [of CO2 in the global atmosphere today in order to get 20 to 60 percent increase in growth. And indeed, this is happening globally as we have increased CO2 from 280 ppm to 410 ppm — a greening of the earth is occurring, NASA has it on their website, the Australian scientists and the European scientist all confirm that there has been a massive greening of the earth.”

He also comments on the grand solar minimum....

“I’ve been watching this prediction of the Grand Solar Minimum for some time now, and now it’s coming to pass and so I’m willing to say that yes, it appears as though the Grand Solar Minimum is occurring and will continue to occur for some time, and will result in a cooling of the climate, which we see just in the last couple of years beginning to set in.

“Indeed in the Arctic, the ice is more prevalent now than it has been in many years, at least 14. And so the trend is going in the opposite direction to the prediction of ever-increasing warmth and loss of ice.

It’s long been stated that the sun is the main controller of the earth’s climate.
 
I'd like to introduce a new technical argument in this debate, and I am frankly uncertain about it.

The standard 'greenhouse' argument is that the warm ground radiates heat energy up into the sky, where some of it is absorbed by the CO2 and then re-radiated back downwards. The problem is, that the troposphere, where this is supposed to happen, is much colder than the ground, and this seems to imply heat moving from a cold place to a warm one - which seems wrong. Now the situation isn't clear because the earth's atmosphere is not in equilibrium - there is heat energy entering the system from the sun. Nevertheless, the argument simply feels wrong.

I tried to see if there are any experiments that demonstrate the claimed effect. There seem to be a scatter of experiments 'for the class room', but I suspect these confuse the 'greenhouse' effect with the fact that CO2 conducts heat less will than air. This is irrelevant in the atmosphere, because the CO2 is so dilute anyway, whereas the experiments simply replace the air with CO2 and then heat it with a bulb immersed in the gas. Is it possible the entire concept of the 'greenhouse' effect is wrong? Remember that I put the word 'greenhouse' in quotes because clearly greenhouses don't work that way (as I explained above). I have seen a reference to this fact in a pro-CAGW site. This fact was admitted in about page three of a long rambling article, and then dismissed.

David
 
This is a great example why those of us who can think critically "smell rats" -

Elizabeth Warren Links Climate Change to Spread of Infectious Diseases amid Coronavirus Fears

Only idiots fail to see how these clowns exploit the specter that humans can do something "effective" to modify the global climate situation and fail to see the possibility its just a power grab by soulless tools of powerful nefarious forces that hide behind them while ensure they are heard and placed in power.

And for those who do see it and yet are so dug into the agenda they pretend they don't, or never admit they do, they are revealing they know they can never win based on their ideological arguments that, if they won, would destroy life from the perspective of life being equated with true freedom.

Life and Freedom go hand in hand. One's connection to their soul is the natural deterrent to the exercise of freedom which harms others (and oneself).
 
I'd like to introduce a new technical argument in this debate, and I am frankly uncertain about it.

The standard 'greenhouse' argument is that the warm ground radiates heat energy up into the sky, where some of it is absorbed by the CO2 and then re-radiated back downwards. The problem is, that the troposphere, where this is supposed to happen, is much colder than the ground, and this seems to imply heat moving from a cold place to a warm one - which seems wrong. Now the situation isn't clear because the earth's atmosphere is not in equilibrium - there is heat energy entering the system from the sun. Nevertheless, the argument simply feels wrong.

I tried to see if there are any experiments that demonstrate the claimed effect. There seem to be a scatter of experiments 'for the class room', but I suspect these confuse the 'greenhouse' effect with the fact that CO2 conducts heat less will than air. This is irrelevant in the atmosphere, because the CO2 is so dilute anyway, whereas the experiments simply replace the air with CO2 and then heat it with a bulb immersed in the gas. Is it possible the entire concept of the 'greenhouse' effect is wrong? Remember that I put the word 'greenhouse' in quotes because clearly greenhouses don't work that way (as I explained above). I have seen a reference to this fact in a pro-CAGW site. This fact was admitted in about page three of a long rambling article, and then dismissed.

David
Interesting and complex. I believe satellite data shows that the lower levels of the atmosphere are already blocked in the frequency associated with CO2 absorption of heat. I am not sure about that, I recall reading it somewhere. Yeah I agree, that cold moving to warm is definitely against thermodynamics.

Also the upper levels of the atmosphere are not only colder. (less photon emission from molecules) but also much thinner. (less molecular collisions to transfer heat.) So easier to escape into space. If the lower levels are already blocked in that frequency then.....??

In a previous post of mine, Ned Nikolov makes this statement...

"The climate theory claims that recent warming was caused by trapping of IR radiant heat by increasing atmos. "greenhouse gases". However satellite observations show no sign of heat trapping, since outgoing LW radiation increases in phase with rising lower-troposphere Global Temp."

I believe the IPCC invokes a feedback mechanism claiming that the extra IR emission reflected back to Earth then causes move evaporation and therefore more water vapor in the atmosphere. Circular reasoning?
 
This is a great example why those of us who can think critically "smell rats" -

Elizabeth Warren Links Climate Change to Spread of Infectious Diseases amid Coronavirus Fears

Only idiots fail to see how these clowns exploit the specter that humans can do something "effective" to modify the global climate situation and fail to see the possibility its just a power grab by soulless tools of powerful nefarious forces that hide behind them while ensure they are heard and placed in power.

And for those who do see it and yet are so dug into the agenda they pretend they don't, or never admit they do, they are revealing they know they can never win based on their ideological arguments that, if they won, would destroy life from the perspective of life being equated with true freedom.

Life and Freedom go hand in hand. One's connection to their soul is the natural deterrent to the exercise of freedom which harms others (and oneself).
I agree with this. Avoid silly layperson speculation (on all sides) and stick to quality science papers.
 
Ollila (2019) reconfigures the “consensus”-derived greenhouse effect radiation values and finds (a) LW absorption only adds 45% to Earth’s present atmospheric greenhouse effect, (b) water vapor dominates (76.4%) the total greenhouse effect whereas CO2’s contribution is minimal (7.3%), and (c) CO2 climate sensitivity is just 0.6°C upon doubling.


The reconfiguration eliminates the “physical contradiction” of having a 155.6 W/m² create an energy flux of 345.6 W/m² by rejecting the claim that the entire longwave energy flux is from greenhouse gases.

Further, CO2’s total temperature contribution to the greenhouse effect is reduced from 7.2°C to 2.4°C, which better aligns with the climate sensitivity (doubled CO2) estimate of 0.6°C.

 
The blink of an eye climatically. Is this significant?
Is that relevant if we are talking about climate change damage that has supposedly already happened. Some third world countries are claiming many billions of pounds in reparations for the damage we are supposed to have caused.

Remember, we are talking about a supposed temperature change which is far, far less that the natural variation from year to year, that happens naturally!

It wouldn't be so bad if that money would actually go to help poor people, but you know a lot of it would go on fleets of expensive cars and private jets for the rulers and their mates!

David
 
I know this is specifically about the BBC, but I am sure the comments apply to other MSM:

https://mailchi.mp/e3369f8e45de/pre...melting-antarctic-glacier-175865?e=63dcba451c

Malf and Alice, I'd really appreciate it if you would read that link - it is very revealing - then we can discuss it.

David
You've linked to an opinion piece (without references for their claims) from a lobby group whose raison d'etre is to undermine the scientific consensus and promote a right wing libertarian agenda. There is secrecy and controversy around their funders and they have a history of relying on unreliable sources for their information. What makes you trust this information over other sources?


Is that relevant if we are talking about climate change damage that has supposedly already happened. Some third world countries are claiming many billions of pounds in reparations for the damage we are supposed to have caused.

Remember, we are talking about a supposed temperature change which is far, far less that the natural variation from year to year, that happens naturally!

It wouldn't be so bad if that money would actually go to help poor people, but you know a lot of it would go on fleets of expensive cars and private jets for the rulers and their mates!

David
I detect an increasing desire to move away from the science towards more political arguments and statements. That's fine, and we can probably find some common ground there.
 
You've linked to an opinion piece (without references for their claims) from a lobby group whose raison d'etre is to undermine the scientific consensus and promote a right wing libertarian agenda. There is secrecy and controversy around their funders and they have a history of relying on unreliable sources for their information. What makes you trust this information over other sources?
Come on Malf!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

That may be scary, but it has damn all to do with CO2 in the atmosphere.

David
 
My latest Facebook post:

“This is one event that I feel close to, in that I think it’s really hard to explain away. Knowing the innocence of the children involved. My growing up in a familiar environment to me. It makes me think of Greta Thunberg. I may feel uneasy about her and her movement. I don’t know if it’s man made or otherwise, I don’t feel threatened by the climate.

However, I certainly think that we’re behaving very badly to the earths animals and have not anything like the respect for our beautiful planet that we ought to have. We treat ALL animals disgracefully, not least, ourselves. We show very little regard to others, no matter the form, so is it any surprise?

The message of environmental disaster has been transmitted to us for a long time, as it was to many of these kids in the video. Maybe Greta is being manipulated, but looking past that, the truth is blindingly obvious. I am dubious about ‘Climate Change’, but not about the fact that our behaviour really needs to change.“

 
Last edited:
Top