Gulf Stream

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

13 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Same garbage though.  The mechanism of global warming is not CO2 getting hotter (enthalpy) which makes the atmosphere hotter.

Tell them and report back if you will.

[Aufan59 83]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Tell them and report back if you will.

No interest.  I thought you might have interest in the validity of what you post.  But I remember the last discussion is that your only criteria is that it matches your viewpoint, not accuracy or validity.  

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

1 minute ago, Aufan59 said:

No interest.  I thought you might have interest in the validity of what you post.  But I remember the last discussion is that your only criteria is that it matches your viewpoint, not accuracy or validity.  

Not interested because you are convinced they are wrong and are not curious as to how two different studies came up with similar findings?  I see.

[Leftfield 2,699]

5 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Different studies:

How to cite this paper: Nelson, M. and Nelson, D.B. (2024) Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change. International Journal of Geosciences, 15, 246-269. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2024.153015
Received: January 14, 2024 Accepted: March 23, 2024 Published: March 26, 2024

and

Received: March 02, 2024Accepted: April 03, 2024Published: April 15, 2024Citation: Lightfoot HD,Ratzer G.Reliable physics demand revision of the IPCC global warming potentials

So it seems at least two different studies have misunderstood the relationship between enthapy and radiative forcing.

Maybe you can straighten them out.  or maybe there is something to what they are saying.

As @Aufan59said, the second paper is the same you posted earlier in the thread.

As for the first.....there's no possible way you read that. If you did, and you think that is a legitimate, peer reviewed paper, or hell even just a paper that a minimally competent researcher wrote, then you're even more hopeless than I thought.

You've screwed yourself either way, because if you didn't read it, you've proven you don't care what or how legitimate the evidence is, you'll just post it because it seems to support your position. If you did read it, then you have no business trying to hold a technical conversation with a ferret, much less another human being.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

7 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

As @Aufan59said, the second paper is the same you posted earlier in the thread.

As for the first.....there's no possible way you read that. If you did, and you think that is a legitimate, peer reviewed paper, or hell even just a paper that a minimally competent researcher wrote, then you're even more hopeless than I thought.

You've screwed yourself either way, because if you didn't read it, you've proven you don't care what or how legitimate the evidence is, you'll just post it because it seems to support your position. If you did read it, then you have no business trying to hold a technical conversation with a ferret, much less another human being.

 

They are obviously different papers as they are authored by different researchers at different times.  They may present similar findings that may be true.  I presented the information as something that goes against the prevailing thought of man made climate change due to CO2.  I am not trying to hold a technical conversation with anyone.  You and 59 keep saying these guys are wrong.  There has been no discussion.  Just you throwing shade at anyone that doesn’t agree with your position.

[Leftfield 2,699]

22 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

They are obviously different papers as they are authored by different researchers at different times.  They may present similar findings that may be true.  I presented the information as something that goes against the prevailing thought of man made climate change due to CO2.  I am not trying to hold a technical conversation with anyone.  You and 59 keep saying these guys are wrong.  There has been no discussion.  Just you throwing shade at anyone that doesn’t agree with your position.

There's been no discussion on your part. Clearly you're not trying to hold a technical conversation because you're not even bothering to read what you're posting. 59 pointed out why the enthalpy argument is irrelevant, and I pointed out why the saturation argument was both wrong and irrelevant. 

This latest paper is just gibberish. There are unsupported assertions, contradictions, lack of citations, opinion and conjecture. Hell, there are misspellings in most of the charts. Anyone putting it forward should be embarrassed.

Why do you even pretend to have an open mind about this? You're obviously not going to believe anything aside from what you want to believe, because everything you post is rebutted and debunked, yet you still keep posting more of it. And you accuse me of refusing to believe anything else, yet of the two of us I'm the only one taking the time to read what you're posting.

[Leftfield 2,699]

52 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

They are obviously different papers as they are authored by different researchers at different times. 

I said that the second paper you cited (bolded below).......

 

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Different studies:

How to cite this paper: Nelson, M. and Nelson, D.B. (2024) Decoupling CO2 from Climate Change. International Journal of Geosciences, 15, 246-269. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijg.2024.153015
Received: January 14, 2024 Accepted: March 23, 2024 Published: March 26, 2024

and

Received: March 02, 2024Accepted: April 03, 2024Published: April 15, 2024Citation: Lightfoot HD,Ratzer G.Reliable physics demand revision of the IPCC global warming potentials

So it seems at least two different studies have misunderstood the relationship between enthapy and radiative forcing.

Maybe you can straighten them out.  or maybe there is something to what they are saying.

....had already been posted. You posted it back on page 11 of the thread: https://setpublisher.com/index.php/jbas/article/view/2509/2267

That's the one that argued CO2 doesn't have enough increased enthalpy to affect global temperatures ,which, well, no s**t.

 

[Aufan59 83]

10 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not interested because you are convinced they are wrong and are not curious as to how two different studies came up with similar findings?  I see.

I am convinced they are correct, CO2 doesn’t impact the temperature of the earth by way of enthalpy increases.  

 

However, this is like saying that umbrellas don’t absorb much water, therefore they don’t protect you from rain.  It is true that umbrellas don’t absorb much water.  But that isn’t the mechanism they use to protect you from rain.

 

 

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

6 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

I am convinced they are correct, CO2 doesn’t impact the temperature of the earth by way of enthalpy increases.  

 

However, this is like saying that umbrellas don’t absorb much water, therefore they don’t protect you from rain.  It is true that umbrellas don’t absorb much water.  But that isn’t the mechanism they use to protect you from rain.

 

 

I glad you guys agree with the study.

Looking at the greenhouse gases I can see why they want us to eat bugs and limit farming. I don’t think that is an achievable goal.  But that’s just me.

[JMWATS 114]

Interesting data on hurricane strikes on the U.S.  Despite the media’s frenzied reporting on the increased frequency and power of hurricanes in the present day, when it comes to hurricane strikes on the U.S. the mid-1800s were pretty sporty and perhaps underreported as well. 

 

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Edited May 6 by JMWATS

[homersapien 11,498]

Here's the most recent update I've seen from NOAA.  Nothing particularly "frenzied" about it :

https://sciencecouncil.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1.1_SOS_Atlantic_Hurricanes_Climate.pdf

Summary:
Here, we address three important and societally relevant
questions about Atlantic hurricane activity and climate: 1) Has
there been a change in the number of Atlantic hurricanes? 2)
Has human-caused climate change had any detectable
influence on hurricanes and their impacts? 3) What changes
do we expect going forward with continued global warming?
Several Atlantic hurricane activity metrics show
pronounced increases since 1980. However, evidence for
any significant trends is much weaker considering trends
beginning from the early 20th century, partly due to observed
data limitations. Decreases in aerosol forcing since the 1970s
and multidecadal ocean circulation changes are thought to be
contributing to the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since
1980, though their relative contributions are still uncertain and
with no scientific consensus. While greenhouse gas-induced
warming may have also affected Atlantic hurricane activity, a
detectable greenhouse gas influence on hurricane activity has
not been identified with high confidence. This is partly due to
the masking of any century-scale trends by pronounced
multidecadal variability due to aerosols and/or internal
variability. Determining the relative contributions of aerosols,
internal variability, and other factors to the recent multidecadal
variations in Atlantic hurricane activity has important
implications for predictions for the coming decades.
Future projections include increased risk of coastal
inundation during storms due to sea level rise, likely increased
hurricane rain rates and wind intensities, and possible
increased numbers of Category 4-5 hurricanes, along with
decreased numbers of tropical storms and hurricanes (all
categories combined).

 

[JMWATS 114]

19 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Here's the most recent update I've seen from NOAA.  Nothing particularly "frenzied" about it.

 

 

“Media”

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2024/02/05/hurricanes-category6/

 

https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/04/05/2024-atlantic-hurricane-season-forecast-to-be-extremely-active-due-to-hotter-oceans-and-la

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

When the elites change their lifestyle I may start believing that there is a crisis.  I don’t think it will happen.

 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

2 hours ago, JMWATS said:

“Media”

 

 

"Frenzied" 

Edited May 6 by homersapien

[Aufan59 83]

On 5/4/2024 at 3:49 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I glad you guys agree with the study.

Looking at the greenhouse gases I can see why they want us to eat bugs and limit farming. I don’t think that is an achievable goal.  But that’s just me.

Wait, you are arguing against the science because you don’t want to eat bugs?

 

You realize it is possible to argue against proposed solutions without disagreeing with the problem.  Two people can agree on a problem and disagree on the solution…

Edited May 6 by Aufan59

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

Wait, you are arguing against the science because you don’t want to eat bugs?

 

You realize it is possible to argue against proposed solutions without disagreeing with the problem.  Two people can agree on a problem and disagree on the solution…

Yes, two people can disagree on the solution, but everybody doesn’t agree we have a problem.  Governments around the world are telling us we have a problem and they know how to fix it, but it requires sacrifices by the masses that they, themselves, are not willing to abide by then you know there is a problem.

 

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

TWO LEADING PRINCETON, MIT SCIENTISTS SAY EPA CLIMATE REGULATIONS BASED ON A ‘HOAX’:

"William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule. “All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data."

 

 

[homersapien 11,498]

Good grief. 

These are exactly the same arguments being made - and debunked - against AGW on this forum 10 years ago. 

Edited May 8 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,668]

LOL. No the arguments against AGW haven't been  "debunked". That's not the case no matter how much you believe it and scream it to the top of your alarmist lungs. So pathetic. 

[homersapien 11,498]

3 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

LOL. No the arguments against AGW haven't been  "debunked". That's not the case no matter how much you believe it and scream it to the top of your alarmist lungs. So pathetic. 

OK, fine. AGW is a hoax.  

 

Edited May 9 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,224]

On 5/7/2024 at 7:38 PM, I_M4_AU said:

TWO LEADING PRINCETON, MIT SCIENTISTS SAY EPA CLIMATE REGULATIONS BASED ON A ‘HOAX’:

"William Happer, professor emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argued that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations aren’t based on scientific facts but rather political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be wrong.

“The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule,” Mr. Happer and Mr. Lindzen wrote. “None of the studies provides scientific knowledge, and thus none provides any scientific support for the Proposed Rule. “All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”

Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes, Mr. Happer told The Epoch Times. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data."

 

 

These 2 have been waging this same fight for over 20 years (trump hired them during his term). I won’t dismiss or debunk them - but obviously they’re in the less than 4% of all scientists category. However, if youre a denialist - those 2 are definitely your guys. Ps Happer is almost 85 yrs old … (I know how much age means to you)

[johnnyAU 3,668]

7 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

but obviously they’re in the less than 4% of all scientists category.

BS

[I_M4_AU 8,048]

7 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

trump hired them during his term).

I know how much Trump means to you.  Why not address the material rather than the source?

[johnnyAU 3,668]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know how much Trump means to you.  Why not address the material rather than the source?

Because he can't refute anything Dr. Happer has to say, and he knows it.

[auburnatl1 5,224]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I know how much Trump means to you.  Why not address the material rather than the source?

Because I’m not qualified. Look, I hate this crap - it’s a pain in rear and what could be easier than just dismissing it.Who wants to deal with any long term problems? From glaciers to tooth aches to termite prevention. Maybe it’s not real? Maybe they’re wrong? Maybe it’ll go away.  I’ll find an article on the internet to dismiss it and make me feel better and prove “the experts” wrong. Here’s a blog - see, my tooth pain will be gone in a month.

As I’ve said before, I also oppose many of the hysterical measures out there to resolve it. And your earlier points about China are valid.

There simply has to be something between panic driven naive measures and total la la land denial. 

Edited May 10 by auburnatl1