Gulf Stream

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

35 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:

Seems like a very low bar.  What is the consensus among flat earthers about global warming?  

 

There are differing viewpoints about everything.  Stating or even proving that there are differing viewpoints is meaningless.  
 

I have no idea what the flat earthers feel about global warming.  They are allowed to have an opinion, do they not?

Is you opinion the only one that matters?  Is all the other opinions equivalent to the flat earthers?

Man made climate change will not be proven in our lifetime, is it critical enough for the President to declare a Climate Emergency?

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

Another day, another alternate theory:

 

made no difference, but they also proved that it simply isn’t possible for increases in carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise. Kubicki and his team recently published three papers which all conclude that Earth’s atmosphere is already “saturated” with carbon dioxide. This saturation means that, even at greatly increased levels of CO2, the “greenhouse gas” will not cause temperatures to rise. Kubicki et al. summarize their evidence by noting that as a result of saturation, “emitted CO2 does not directly cause an increase in global temperature.” Current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are around 418 parts per million (ppm) but the scientists state that past 400 ppm, “the CO2 concentration can no longer cause any increase in temperature.” https://slaynews.com/news/top-study-carbon-emissions-cannot-cause-global-warming/

Since you are into the nuts and bolts:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666496823000456

 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

17 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

Seems like a very low bar.  What is the consensus among flat earthers about global warming?  

 

There are differing viewpoints about everything.  Stating or even proving that there are differing viewpoints is meaningless.  
 

I think Peter Wood summed it up well in American conservative:

It is also my opinion that the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a compound of leftist ideology, mass delusion, biased, self-confirming pseudo-science, and over-interpretation of fragmentary and ambiguous data. What relative proportions of these four factors go into the mix depends on the individual and the situation. Millions of people go along with so-called climate science because they don’t know any better. A fair number of scientists are so psychologically invested in the theory that they are literally unable to question it. Others have doubts but make their peace with it because it has become their livelihood.

 https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-long-road-to-the-steyn-verdict/

[homersapien 11,425]

On 4/25/2024 at 8:11 AM, Cardin Drake said:

I think Peter Wood summed it up well in American conservative:

It is also my opinion that the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is a compound of leftist ideology, mass delusion, biased, self-confirming pseudo-science, and over-interpretation of fragmentary and ambiguous data. What relative proportions of these four factors go into the mix depends on the individual and the situation. Millions of people go along with so-called climate science because they don’t know any better. A fair number of scientists are so psychologically invested in the theory that they are literally unable to question it. Others have doubts but make their peace with it because it has become their livelihood.

 https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-long-road-to-the-steyn-verdict/

First, thanks for owning up to being a full blown denier for whom there will never be enough evidence, even as the reality of it unfolds.

I'm curious, does Peter Wood have an hypothesis on why the earths temperature is increasing or does he simply reject the evidence that says it is?

Edited April 26 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,425]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:26 AM, Cardin Drake said:

Homer, there is no statistical reference with the skeptical science quote. It's easy enough to find; I'll let you do your own research.  I see a statement like that in almost every MSM article written about an upcoming hurricane season. Surely you don't believe that lie is NOT widespread.  And the information you want on hurricane frequency is already in the chart I posted. 

I do not presume it's a lie.  I expect we'll know for sure in 5-10 years.

 

Edited April 26 by homersapien

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

First, thanks for owning up to being a full blown denier for whom there will never be enough evidence, even as the reality of it unfolds.

I'm curious, does Peter Wood have an hypothesis on why the earths temperature is increasing or does he simply reject the evidence that says it is?

I'm just answering the question about what the flatearthers would say, but I have always admitted to being on the skeptical side.  I think the earth has warmed recently, and it very well may be caused or partially caused by CO2 emissions.  However, I do think the warming has been exaggerated, and it's hard to separate it from natural variation.  And I think all the speculation of drastic consequences is just that--speculation.  The trillions of dollars we are spending aren't a serious attempt to solve the problem. It is mostly greed from a small group of insiders who profit at the expense of the rest of us.  I'll write more on this later when I have more time. 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

I do not presume it's a lie.  I expect we'll know for sure in 5-10 years.

 

It's absolutely a lie to say that we are now experiencing more frequent and intense storms that are driven by climate change.  It's not necessarily a lie to say that we may in the future experience more frequent and intense storms.  I read an article yesterday about drastic increases in homeowner's insurance in Florida, and of course it said it was driven by climate change and the more frequent and intense storms they are experiencing.  The lie is what is being said, and it's widespread. 

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

5 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

The trillions of dollars we are spending aren't a serious attempt to solve the problem.

When a president does something to control China’s and India’s CO2 emissions, we aren’t serious.  Why spend the money when everybody is not on board and China is wiping out all of our efforts?

 

 

Edited April 27 by I_M4_AU

[homersapien 11,425]

On 4/27/2024 at 12:16 PM, Cardin Drake said:

It's absolutely a lie to say that we are now experiencing more frequent and intense storms that are driven by climate change.  It's not necessarily a lie to say that we may in the future experience more frequent and intense storms.  I read an article yesterday about drastic increases in homeowner's insurance in Florida, and of course it said it was driven by climate change and the more frequent and intense storms they are experiencing.  The lie is what is being said, and it's widespread. 

It's not a lie. Just because the relative contribution of natural vs man-made causes is uncertain (which is where we started) doesn't make it false.

You are spinning this uncertainty to claim AGW as a contributing factor as a "lie".  It's conspiratorial, just as I would expect a denier to be.

But like I said, give it another 5-10 years and we'll know with much more certainty.

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

Key Message 8: Changes in Hurricanes

The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.

Edited April 29 by homersapien

[Aufan59 78]

On 4/24/2024 at 9:46 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I have no idea what the flat earthers feel about global warming.  They are allowed to have an opinion, do they not?

Is you opinion the only one that matters?  Is all the other opinions equivalent to the flat earthers?

Man made climate change will not be proven in our lifetime, is it critical enough for the President to declare a Climate Emergency?

 

 

 

Other opinions are fine, as long as they aren’t blatantly lying.

 

Which is why I associated the lies you posted with the flat earthers, as they also are blatant liars.

 

You may think it helps your case by posting different sides, but that isn’t the case if they are just blatantly lying.

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

1 hour ago, Aufan59 said:

Other opinions are fine, as long as they aren’t blatantly lying.

 

Which is why I associated the lies you posted with the flat earthers, as they also are blatant liars.

 

You may think it helps your case by posting different sides, but that isn’t the case if they are just blatantly lying.

Was (is) it a blatant lie that it will be too late to do anything about climate change by the year 2030?  We are to believe we should reduce CO2 by 45% by then and be net zero by 2050 or it’s too late.   Isn’t that just fear mongering?

How seriously can governments be when they are engaged is two wars and the adversarial countries involved couldn’t care less about climate change.   Add to that China is building coal plants monthly and now emits more CO2 that the developed world combined.

Estimtes of $50 Trillion to get to net zero by 2050 and *the scientists* don’t know if that money will lower the temps at all, especially with China not cooperating.

How many more dooms day predictions are we supposed to withstand?

 

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

On 4/27/2024 at 4:02 PM, homersapien said:

It's not a lie. Just because the relative contribution of natural vs man-made causes is uncertain (which is where we started) doesn't make it false.

You are spinning this uncertainty to claim AGW as a contributing factor as a "lie".  It's conspiratorial, just as I would expect a denier to be.

But like I said, give it another 5-10 years and we'll know with much more certainty.

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes

Key Message 8: Changes in Hurricanes

The intensity, frequency, and duration of North Atlantic hurricanes, as well as the frequency of the strongest (Category 4 and 5) hurricanes, have all increased since the early 1980s. The relative contributions of human and natural causes to these increases are still uncertain. Hurricane-associated storm intensity and rainfall rates are projected to increase as the climate continues to warm.

Homer, the data shows and the current NOAA web site (link previously posted) acknowledges that storms are not increasing. It's not a case of being unable to separate human and natural causes, because there is no increase.  You can't refute it with a ten year old report that cherry picked a starting point. This lie is so deeply embedded in the left that you have come to believe it yourself, just as Goebbels predicted. A bunch of science deniers, for sure. 

[auburnatl1 5,006]

On 4/27/2024 at 1:47 PM, I_M4_AU said:

When a president does something to control China’s and India’s CO2 emissions, we aren’t serious.  Why spend the money when everybody is not on board and China is wiping out all of our efforts?

 

 

This thread is a classic example on why many Dems and the (current) GOP are such epic failures.

Option 1: full climate hysteria - convert everything to solar and EVs with draconian regulations - regardless if the technology is ready, what other counties will do, or if it will tank our economy. Put Al gore and Leonardo DiCaprio in charge.

Option 2: it’s all a conspiracy by the deep state science elites.  Screw em all. Rip out our catalytic converters, fire up the coal generators, and sell all our current  … green stuff to the sissy Europeans.  We’ll be dead before it matters anyway.

Option 3:

Theres literally no option 3 for Americans. Extremes yelling at extremes. Another failure of no thinking actionable moderation. A sane approach that we can lead other counties with. Ie incentivize companies to dramatically expand teleworking, more tax credits for low emission vesicles, shame and/or challenge China and India on the world stage (moon race stuff). Hell I don’t know but find/hire people that do.

Be practical but also do something. Lead.

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

7 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Option 3:

Sure there is an option 3, Its called wait and see.  The extremist on the left are the ones that are pushing the do it now or it’ll be too late.

The reason for the pushback is those predictions (none of them) have come true. None.  Now they want you to believe they have the key now and we (the citizens of the world) should believe they can change the whether (climate).

You want America to be fiscally responsible; do you believe America sending $50 trillion by 2050 to achieve net zero is fiscally responsible?  Especially when *the scientist* don’t know if what they propose will acually work?

We (the world) are not ready for what they are trying to push down our throats.  The priorities are backwards.

[auburnatl1 5,006]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Sure there is an option 3, Its called wait and see.  The extremist on the left are the ones that are pushing the do it now or it’ll be too late.

The reason for the pushback is those predictions (none of them) have come true. None.  Now they want you to believe they have the key now and we (the citizens of the world) should believe they can change the whether (climate).

You want America to be fiscally responsible; do you believe America sending $50 trillion by 2050 to achieve net zero is fiscally responsible?  Especially when *the scientist* don’t know if what they propose will acually work?

We (the world) are not ready for what they are trying to push down our throats.  The priorities are backwards.

So….  option 2. Like I said, neither option is acceptable. Hysteria or denial. Btw if this were a business - any ceo that doesn’t manage analytical trends and waits until things go to unrecoverable hell was fired 3 years earlier by the board. We’re a dysfunctional business.

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

So….  option 2. Like I said, neither option is acceptable. Hysteria or denial. Btw if this were a business - any ceo that doesn’t manage analytical trends and waits until things go to unrecoverable hell was fired 3 years earlier by the board. We’re a dysfunctional business.

Again, do you believe spending $50 trillion to *solve* this problem is what a responsible CEO would do when that money doesn’t guarantee it will put a dent in the issue?  All the while there is a company (China) doing everything they can do to profit from your company by selling you solar panels and lithium batteries at the same time not carring about the climate?

How is the CEO supposed to manage this problem?  How do you get to net zero?

[auburnatl1 5,006]

53 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again, do you believe spending $50 trillion to *solve* this problem is what a responsible CEO would do when that money doesn’t guarantee it will put a dent in the issue?  All the while there is a company (China) doing everything they can do to profit from your company by selling you solar panels and lithium batteries at the same time not carring about the climate?

How is the CEO supposed to manage this problem?  How do you get to net zero?

Did you read my initial post? Again  any sane person rejects both extremist options.

Btw so which is it : there no climate change (denial) or China is the bigger cause of it (deflection)? Confused.

fyi .

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/

Edited April 30 by auburnatl1

[Cardin Drake 1,853]

11 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Did you read my initial post? Again  any sane person rejects both extremist options.

https://www.volts.wtf/p/there-is-no-moderate-position-on

Btw so which is it : there no climate change (denial) or China is the bigger cause of it (deflection)? Confused.

fyi .

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/

Not actually a conflict.  Whether you believe or disbelieve that climate change is a serious problem, you can still understand that making our electricity more expensive just shifts more economic activity to China and India, where they continue to build coal plants because it's still the cheapest way to produce electricity.   There's no true cost/benefit analysis for the incredible amounts we are spending on green energy.

[auburnatl1 5,006]

10 minutes ago, Cardin Drake said:

Not actually a conflict.  Whether you believe or disbelieve that climate change is a serious problem, you can still understand that making our electricity more expensive just shifts more economic activity to China and India, where they continue to build coal plants because it's still the cheapest way to produce electricity.   There's no true cost/benefit analysis for the incredible amounts we are spending on green energy.

Capitalism can solve a lot of problems. If we can direct and unleash it. No country innovates like the US

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-profit-hiding-within-teslas-112200420.html#

[Aufan59 78]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Was (is) it a blatant lie that it will be too late to do anything about climate change by the year 2030?  We are to believe we should reduce CO2 by 45% by then and be net zero by 2050 or it’s too late.   Isn’t that just fear mongering?

It is not a lie that we will pass one of the total carbon emissions goal that was set in the Paris accord around that time.  This is a matter of simple arithmetic.

 

The negative consequences of not limiting warming, are predictions based on the evidence at hand.  
 

You presume that the global warming alarmists are lying, so you feel justified in posting lies from differing view points?

 

 

Edited April 30 by Aufan59

[homersapien 11,425]

12 hours ago, Cardin Drake said:

Homer, the data shows and the current NOAA web site (link previously posted) acknowledges that storms are not increasing. It's not a case of being unable to separate human and natural causes, because there is no increase.  You can't refute it with a ten year old report that cherry picked a starting point. This lie is so deeply embedded in the left that you have come to believe it yourself, just as Goebbels predicted. A bunch of science deniers, for sure. 

You are wrong.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/

What Do the Models Show?

Tom Knutson, senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, is a leading scientist on hurricanes and climate change.

He notes that “even if hurricanes themselves don’t change [due to climate change], the flooding from storm surge events will be made worse by sea level rise.” In addition, he says models show increases in a hurricane’s rainfall rate by 2100. This means that hurricanes are likely to cause more intense rain when they come ashore.

Scientists have long predicted that climate change would increase extreme rainfall events. In a warmer world, there is simply more moisture in the air in the form of gaseous water vapor. Think of heating up a pot of water on the stove. Once the liquid water becomes hot enough, it boils and creates steam (or hot water vapor). This process is called “evaporation,” or when a liquid changes to a gas.

A similar process happens at Earth’s surface. As surface temperatures rise, more liquid water evaporates from the land and ocean. Evaporation adds moisture to the air. How much water vapor the air can hold is based on its temperature. Warmer air temperatures can hold more water vapor. The increased moisture in the air leads to more intense rainfall, especially during extreme events.

In a hurricane, spiraling winds draw moist air toward the center, fueling the towering thunderstorms that surround it. As the air continues to warm due to climate change, hurricanes can hold more water vapor, producing more intense rainfall rates in a storm.

Moreover, according to Knutson, most models show that climate change brings a slight increase in hurricane wind intensity. This change is likely related to warming ocean temperatures and more moisture in the air, both of which fuel hurricanes. While most models show either no change or a decrease in hurricane frequency in a warmer climate, a greater proportion of the storms that form will reach very intense (Category 4 or 5) levels. In other words, while there may be fewer storms, the ones that form have a greater chance of becoming stronger.

Scientists continue to research these topics along with other important hurricane metrics, including any potential changes in the speed at which hurricanes move across the ocean, how large storms will get, and where hurricanes will go.

What Do Observations Show?

Climate models that help us understand future changes are a key part to the story, but have any changes in hurricane activity already been observed in recent years?

Since the 1980s, the hurricane record has shown a more active period in the North Atlantic Ocean. On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes, and an increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify. Thus far, most of these increases are from natural climate variations. However, one recent study suggests that the latest increase in the proportion of North Atlantic hurricanes undergoing rapid intensification is a bit too large to be explained by natural variability alone. This could be the beginning of detecting the impact of climate change on hurricanes, the paper states. In contrast, the frequency of hurricanes making U.S. landfall (a subset of North Atlantic hurricanes) has not increased since 1900, despite significant global warming and the heating of the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

One current focus of hurricane research is “sampling hurricanes by flying into them for more accurate data,” says Shirley Murillo, deputy director of NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division.

These higher-quality data are important for improving hurricane model forecasts now and in the future. NOAA partners with NASA to collect measurements of various aspects of hurricanes over time. “NASA weather satellites are a powerful tool for observations, as people cannot fly into every storm to gather data,” Murillo says. Satellites help expand the observational record. With a longer, more detailed record, scientists can detect changes in long-term data trends over time.

This partnership is also developing the next generation of satellites to further improve hurricane observations for models. Dr. Marangelly Fuentes, meteorologist and program manager for one of NASA’s Earth research contracts, says researchers “run tests with potential new data to see how they would impact the model’s ability to correctly forecast a hurricane.”

For example, researchers may test to see if more detailed data about the ocean’s surface temperature in front of a storm help to accurately predict its intensity. If they find something useful, they can use this information to inform the design of instruments on future satellites. Then as more data are collected, this will lead to a better understanding of forecasting hurricanes and how they may be impacted by climate change.

------------------------------------

So, hurricanes have increased in frequency and intensity. 

What cannot be claimed - as yet - that this is a result of global warming. Not enough data.

But as a matter of physics, more heat - as illustrated by auburnnatl1's post - equals more energy. This will undoubtedly result in stronger and/or more frequent storms.

That is as certain as is more speed produces more damage when a car strikes a tree (for example.)  This is why the models predict more frequent and/or stronger hurricanes.

Edited April 30 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,425]

10 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

So….  option 2. Like I said, neither option is acceptable. Hysteria or denial. Btw if this were a business - any ceo that doesn’t manage analytical trends and waits until things go to unrecoverable hell was fired 3 years earlier by the board. We’re a dysfunctional business.

Climate models that help us understand future changes are a key part to the story, but have any changes in hurricane activity already been observed in recent years?

Since the 1980s, the hurricane record has shown a more active period in the North Atlantic Ocean. On average, there have been more storms, stronger hurricanes, and an increase in hurricanes that rapidly intensify. Thus far, most of these increases are from natural climate variations. However, one recent study

suggests that the latest increase in the proportion of North Atlantic hurricanes undergoing rapid intensification is a bit too large to be explained by natural variability alone. This could be the beginning of detecting the impact of climate change on hurricanes, the paper states. In contrast, the frequency of hurricanes making U.S. landfall (a subset of North Atlantic hurricanes) has not increased since 1900, despite significant global warming and the heating of the tropical Atlantic Ocean.

One current focus of hurricane research is “sampling hurricanes by flying into them for more accurate data,” says Shirley Murillo, deputy director of NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division

. These higher-quality data are important for improving hurricane model forecasts now and in the future. NOAA partners with NASA to collect measurements of various aspects of hurricanes over time. “NASA weather satellites are a powerful tool for observations, as people cannot fly into every storm to gather data,” Murillo says. Satellites help expand the observational record. With a longer, more detailed record, scientists can detect changes in long-term data trends over time.

This partnership is also developing the next generation of satellites to further improve hurricane observations for models. Dr. Marangelly Fuentes, meteorologist and program manager for one of NASA’s Earth research contracts, says researchers “run tests with potential new data to see how they would impact the model’s ability to correctly forecast a hurricane.”

For example, researchers may test to see if more detailed data about the ocean’s surface temperature in front of a storm help to accurately predict its intensity. If they find something useful, they can use this information to inform the design of instruments on future satellites. Then as more data are collected, this will lead to a better understanding of forecasting hurricanes and how they may be impacted by climate change.

Hmmm.  Maybe 1980 is not such an "arbitrary, cherry picked" date to use after all.

[homersapien 11,425]

Here's an interesting article discussing China/India and global warming:

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-it-matter-how-much-united-states-reduces-its-carbon-dioxide-emissions

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

9 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Did you read my initial post? Again  any sane person rejects both extremist options.

Btw so which is it : there no climate change (denial) or China is the bigger cause of it (deflection)? Confused.

fyi .

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/

When your own government is one of the extremes you have to pushback, don’t you?

Assuming all the pundits are right, why are who ever is in control of this narrative  overlooking what China, India and other developing countries are doing?

That is the inconsistent part I’m trying to point out.

The climate has changed for millions of years, there is no denying that.  The issue is why now do we think we can control it?   And at what cost?  And why, to save future poor people at the expense of the poor people now?  We are not ready to be net zero by 2050.

Your article is as informative as any other opinion based article on what China may do.

There is no basis for our government to declare a Climate Emergency which Biden is threatening to do.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,949]

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

It is not a lie that we will pass one of the total carbon emissions goal that was set in the Paris accord around that time.  This is a matter of simple arithmetic.

 

So if we pass one of those goals, how long does it take to see if that goal has really worked?  That is where the lie is, you can set goals, but does it really work?

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

 

The negative consequences of not limiting warming, are predictions based on the evidence at hand.  

So was global cooling predicted in the 70’s.

7 hours ago, Aufan59 said:

You presume that the global warming alarmists are lying, so you feel justified in posting lies from differing view points?

I have witnessed the attempts of government to control the habits of it’s citizens for a long time.  This is just the latest.  The government is pushing an extreme view and is locked in one one cause.  Are they looking at others?