Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[K4fxd]

WHAT IS/ARE THE MECHANISM/S THAT EXPLAINS THE RECENT WARMING?

The same mechanism's that explain past warming

It’s a very simple question.

Yes it is

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

The same mechanism's that explain past warming

Absolutely! Sort of....
You’d agree that there have been several influencer‘s of previous warming right? (Solar output, orbital cycles, GHG concentrations, albedo etc etc.)

So, we know for a FACT that the sun isn’t causing the CURRENT warming. If the sun was the cause, the stratosphere would be warming, and yet it’s cooling, whereas the troposphere is warming, which demonstrates that the issue stems from heat being trapped by GHG’s rather than a surplus of heat reaching the planet (there’s plenty of other lines of evidence that show this but this is the simplest to discuss).

The planets albedo hasn’t changed enough to account for the warming either, so we can discard that until new evidence arrives that might demonstrate some prolific change in albedo. Again, if albedo were the cause, you’d see warming in the stratosphere, which we don’t.

Ok, so back to GHG’s.
Which of these has increased dramatically over the past 200 years?
Why do all the reconstructions show an absurdly close correlation between CO2 concentrations and average global temp?
Why is the RATE of change VASTLY different to any other point in the Earths history?

You’ve proposed that water-vapour might explain it, and it does have some predictive power in that it forms part of a feedback loop.

Put simply, water vapour concentrations RESPOND to a change in atmospheric temperature. They do NOT proceed it. You cannot increase the amount of water vapour in the air for a given temperature.
Ergo, you’ll see water-vapour concentrations rise as the planet warms, not the other way around.
The tail doesn’t wag the dog on that one.

This isn’t about “belief” it’s about understanding mechanisms that are well enough documented and accounted for.

Yeah sure, it could be another GHG that’s causing all of this, but...as just one example:

“While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes. Here is a graph of the various forcings that influence climate (methane is CH4, right above CO2).“

You also asked much earlier if we could cool the planet.
Yes.
All you need to do is release a tonne of aerosols and particulates and you could reverse the process.
You might not want to live on the planet left behind though.

 

[CJJon]

Hello; I can follow your logic but do not accept it as stated. It is not necessarily a case that if I cannot fine some natural cause for the warming that there is not in fact a natural cause for the warming.
There are a few ways to answer your question. One has to do with the way temperatures are measured currently compared to the way past measurements are estimated. Not sure how far back to go with the idea we humans now have pretty accurate thermometers. I do not recall just when a reliable thermometer became wide spread. I have read about this before but cannot put a date to it. So let me use 300 years with the understanding this could be wrong. Then there is the question of when people had access to the instruments and began to keep good records. My guess is it was during the sailing ships era. I also will guess they were not making an effort to keep such records for the purpose we are discussing. Maybe for nautical tables. So in terms of temperature data points specifically gathered for the purpose of climate study the time may be less.

Old temperatures are estimated in different ways since we were not keeping records and did not have a good thermometer 10,000 years ago. I use 10,000 years since this is what I recall as being around the time warming started at the end of the last ice sheets advance. So in one respect warmings have been going on for some 10,000 years. Hard to say just what the rate of warming may have been exactly over those ten K years because the temps are estimates using indirect methods.
We have very good details of average temps year to year currently, down to fractions of a degree C. I just do not have confidence we can use estimates from thousands of years ago as a comparison. For example modern measure units might be like measuring distance in feet while thousands of year old temperature estimates might be like using a unit of 100 miles as the base .
I can see that some confidence can be had that there has been a general warming over time but the old inference data may miss some time periods in the past with warming rates similar to those currently.

Let me use a topo map as an example. If the contour interval is tight, say ten or twenty feet, you can get a decent idea of the lay of the land from a map. As the unit intervals become greater you can start to miss some pretty big features. My guess is with a classroom globe the size of a basketball and a basketball side by side, the dimples on the basketball will be bigger in scale that MT Everest.

I was already well on the way to being an older man when the deep sea vents were discovered and brand new chapters had to be written about life on earth. A whole ecosystem not dependent on the sun with a unique food chain. I do get that you want everything possible to be known about natural climate change to already be known. Such may be the case, but there may be some unknown thing or two still in play. It was not until the deep diving submarines had been invented that we found out about the deep sea vents and they were around all along.

I also am old enough to have had to revise my thinking about what happened to the dinosaurs to add another example. I get that you are among those who want what you have chosen to accept as being the true case to be the settled science. I just am not yet fully convinced.
If we were discussing the theory about the demise of the dinosaurs I would not be contesting with you. What ever had happened to the dinosaurs will not make a bit of difference to my life. However you want me and everyone else to make radical changes in lifestyles and enter into a "do without" way of living. A new way of life that will be very expensive on top of all else.
Add to the different lifestyle and expense I am expected to not see any benefit from changing my lifestyle for at least 50 more years, maybe 100 years to see a temperature drop of one half (1/2 a degree). A big ask that I change a lifestyle to reduce my CO2 footprint from some one who is driving a Mustang GT with over 400 HP. At least when I pushed for a reduced human population decades ago I lived the life and was childless.

There is more can be said but this is enough for now.

It is you that are making the fanciful claims and have nothing to back it up. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You have provided nothing but your own flawed ideas about things.

The vast, vast majority of evidence backs up human contributions to the current warming. There is nothing that is taken seriously about some unknown thing causing the warming. Unicorn time. Something that has slipped past all the scientists who study this and all the crazy nay-sayers too? Oh, except some random old man who doesn't want to change his ways and was wrong about the population explosion. You and that Crazy Horse got it all figured out...Mmmmm-kay.

 

[CJJon]

The same mechanism's that explain past warming

You have to ignore a great many things to believe this...not just other's opinions, but actual real facts. You would also have to be much smarter than the world's leading scientists in this field.

You are trying to counter decades of research, thousands of scientists, and extensive data with 7 word responses.

No one takes your ideas seriously.

 

[sk47]

Hello; Let me add a bit more to the discussion from my point of view.

The same mechanism's that explain past warming

Yes it is

Hello; I guess you have noticed that two who are arguing against us have reverted to personal attacks the last few posts. examples include - No one takes us seriously; fanciful claims; flawed ideas; unicorn time.

I do wish to point out one thing. I do not see that I was wrong about human population. The population has continued to increase exponentially and is currently increasing.

Worldometer - real time world statistics (worldometers.info)

Note: net population growth for one day is over 88,000. Net is the increase after those who die is subtracted from births. This even in a pandemic.

 

[sk47]

Absolutely! Sort of....
You’d agree that there have been several influencer‘s of previous warming right? (Solar output, orbital cycles, GHG concentrations, albedo etc etc.)
The planets albedo hasn’t changed enough to account for the warming either, so we can discard that until new evidence arrives that might demonstrate some prolific change in albedo. Again, if albedo were the cause, you’d see warming in the stratosphere, which we don’t.

Hello; Lets consider one of your items, albedo. Back around ten thousand plus years ago there were massive ice sheets covering large portions of the earth's surface. Not sure it can be proven but I will use one of your if-then sort of arguments. If there was lots of ice then there must have been lots of snow. The snow and ice covering the ground ought to have increased the albedo.
( higher albedo = more reflectivity is my understanding) The lighter shades of snow and ice should have reflected much more of the suns energy compared to uncovered ground.
So that condition did not persist. The ice sheets did retreat starting 10,000 years ago just as they had done during the four or more known periods of glaciation that had happened before. ( the ice sheet advances are thought to have advanced at least five times on north america is what I have heard and read about. There have been what is called interglacial warming periods between the advances of the ice sheets. For most of my life I have been reading we are currently living what should be the most recent interglacial warming period.

These periods of glaciation and periods of warming with retreating ice sheets all happened by natural forces. Natural forces in play long before the human industrial revolution ever started. I have been willing to concede human activities can play a small role in weather and climate, but that apparently is not good enough from your point of view.

I have noticed you do not resort to calling me selfish, as one other does, for not being eager to give up a lifestyle. Such is good. You did say such thinking ought not be based on simple beliefs. I try to add comments based on understanding. You are is a sense a true believer in what you support, that much I can see.

In 1977 I lived in Harlan County KY. We had one of the hardest winters I have ever known. Over 20 days when the temperatures never got above freezing, day or night. Water lines buried in the ground froze. Fuel lines in cars froze for those who did not take precautions. There had been bad winters every decade of my life before that winter and for decades after. The blizzard of 1993 stands out in my mind. My father use to tell me stories of bad winters when was young. In some ways I can handle the warmer winters the last few years. I guess you were implying we could put lots of reflective stuff in the high atmosphere and cool the planet and maybe get back to conditions I would not like. Maybe influence a turn back to ice sheets. Not sure people can do such a thing, but hope we do not try.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; I guess you have noticed that two who are arguing against us have reverted to personal attacks the last few posts. examples include - No one takes us seriously; fanciful claims; flawed ideas; unicorn time.

Not one of those constitutes a personal attack. Seriously.
They are assertions that are backed by the evifence you guys have provided.
A personal attack would be “idiot” or “hypocrite” or similar.

 

[CJJon]

"Scruffy looking nerf-herder"

That's a personal attack.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; Lets consider one of your items, albedo. Back around ten thousand plus years ago there were massive ice sheets covering large portions of the earth's surface. Not sure it can be proven but I will use one of your if-then sort of arguments. If there was lots of ice then there must have been lots of snow. The snow and ice covering the ground ought to have increased the albedo.
( higher albedo = more reflectivity is my understanding) The lighter shades of snow and ice should have reflected much more of the suns energy compared to uncovered ground.
So that condition did not persist. The ice sheets did retreat starting 10,000 years ago just as they had done during the four or more known periods of glaciation that had happened before. ( the ice sheet advances are thought to have advanced at least five times on north america is what I have heard and read about. There have been what is called interglacial warming periods between the advances of the ice sheets. For most of my life I have been reading we are currently living what should be the most recent interglacial warming period.

These periods of glaciation and periods of warming with retreating ice sheets all happened by natural forces. Natural forces in play long before the human industrial revolution ever started. I have been willing to concede human activities can play a small role in weather and climate, but that apparently is not good enough from your point of view.

I have noticed you do not resort to calling me selfish, as one other does, for not being eager to give up a lifestyle. Such is good. You did say such thinking ought not be based on simple beliefs. I try to add comments based on understanding. You are is a sense a true believer in what you support, that much I can see.

In 1977 I lived in Harlan County KY. We had one of the hardest winters I have ever known. Over 20 days when the temperatures never got above freezing, day or night. Water lines buried in the ground froze. Fuel lines in cars froze for those who did not take precautions. There had been bad winters every decade of my life before that winter and for decades after. The blizzard of 1993 stands out in my mind. My father use to tell me stories of bad winters when was young. In some ways I can handle the warmer winters the last few years. I guess you were implying we could put lots of reflective stuff in the high atmosphere and cool the planet and maybe get back to conditions I would not like. Maybe influence a turn back to ice sheets. Not sure people can do such a thing, but hope we do not try.

I left out some pertinent words. My mistake.

Heres the original statement with the relevant words inserted.

“The planets albedo hasn’t changed enough IN RECENT TIMES to account for the warming either, so we can discard that until new evidence arrives that might demonstrate some prolific change in albedo.“

By “recent times” I mean “the last few hundred years”

 

[Burkey]

These periods of glaciation and periods of warming with retreating ice sheets all happened by natural forces. Natural forces in play long before the human industrial revolution ever started. I have been willing to concede human activities can play a small role in weather and climate, but that apparently is not good enough from your point of view.

The simplest summary of your response is this:

Bushfires occur naturally and have done so for as long as combustible materials have existed.
Therefore, humans can’t cause bushfires.

The premise of your argument is faulty.
Worse than that, we can prove you wrong with evidence, not just logic alone.

 

[Burkey]

"Scruffy looking nerf-herder"

That's a personal attack.

Or it might take the form of continually posting pictures of the person you’re arguing with and attacking their appearance.
Just like Jesus would’ve done.

 

[K4fxd]

Bushfires occur naturally and have done so for as long as combustible materials have existed.
Therefore, humans can’t cause bushfires.

If you really think that is his argument you have not read his posts.

 

[CJJon]

If you really think that is his argument you have not read his posts.

It's an analogy not a recitation of his argument.

 

[sk47]

If you really think that is his argument you have not read his posts.

Hello; I thought about addressing this a few moments ago. Not too much point. I figure any who might be lurking and reading the thread can see for themselves. I know what I wrote as do you.

I guess part of the tactic is to try to make my statements seem flawed. I call it pretending my statements do not make sense. You are correct I was not making the sort of argument he implied.
I also notice another attempt to set definitions so as to suit. That is a strategy in use for some time. I did not understand it for some time outside of this site. This is perhaps one of the more successful things being done. Control the language and then control the message. We wound up with cancel culture from it, among other things.
It often now is no longer subtle. Everything is infrastructure or all the things that get labeled as racists can be examples of overreach. Nobody wants to be labeled a racists so many hold back or keep silent. These are not in use in this thread, but I have been labeled as selfish a few times.

Here they hope to continue to throw personal remarks in the comments and claim the remarks are not personal. I do concede the last batch are not as strong as some which have gone before. But still in a similar vein. If you cannot successfully dispute a statement then cast dispersions on the person. Try to make the person seem unworthy of consideration. Such does not work on me. I have no way to tell if it works on others.

 

[Burkey]

I guess part of the tactic is to try to make my statements seem flawed.

It’s not about making the statements “seem” flawed. The statements ARE flawed. I’m just using analogies to illustrate HOW they are flawed, in the hope that you’ll be able to see it. Clearly that hasn’t worked as yet.

My actual “tactic” is to try and get you to read some scientific literature from reputable sources, digest it, and come back with questions when you don’t understand something, rather than making assertions that aren’t supported by evidence.

I call it pretending my statements do not make sense.

We aren’t “pretending”.
It’s factually correct that your statements don’t make sense to people who have knowledge of areas you clearly don’t.
It’s the equivalent of watching someone who doesn’t understand numbers, trying to argue that 2 + 2 doesn’t equal 4. (That’s another analogy, not an attack on you personally).

These are not in use in this thread, but I have been labeled as selfish a few times.

I don’t recall anyone calling you selfish.
Even if they had, it would do nothing to strengthen their argument.

If you cannot successfully dispute a statement then cast dispersions on the person.

I think you meant Aspersions and I agree with you.
The argument stands or falls on its own merits. However, the argument needs to be coherent and consistent with the evidence before it can even be worth considering.
You can build syllogistic argument that makes logical sense but the premise is flawed.
That is the problem your arguments generally suffer from, based on what I’ve seen here.

Sponsored