Climate Change, Part III

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Not at all. How on earth did you get there?

It's very basic mathematics.

100 units of stuff get released. 100 units of stuff get absorbed.
Something comes along and releases 4.166 extra units of stuff.
24 years later the amount of stuff has doubled.

Basic numbers seem to be beyond you.

Ah, so you're back on imaginary chemistry where 384 ppm CO2 from natural sources is benign, but 16 ppm of the same molecule warrants spending and taxing ourselves to penury to reduce it. Thanks for the math lesson.

But if manmade CO2 is so special then it's the ideal weapon to counter the expected cooling from sunspot cycle 25, since it had been so effective preventing us from cooling in the current cycle, achieving as we have the bliss of climate equilibrium.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I'm pretty sure this train of thought settles the AGW argument once and for all, ... sun has been warming continuously over time... that recently sunspot activity has been less than predicted, which should result in cooler temperatures since sunspots are demonstrable earth warmers. ...equilibrium, which we have apparently reached by means of manmade CO2 emissions... WE SHOULD ALL IMMEDIATELY INCREASE OUR CARBON FOOTPRINTS. Please, for the sake of the children! ... manmade sources of atmostpheric CO2 are a gnat fart in a windstorm relative to natural sources...we must admit that increasing CO2 production to offset sunspot cycle 25 cooling is a must!...To disprove this conclusion, you need only do two things, which I don't think any AGW fool can ( or will) do.

I appreciate that you're not just firing from the hip. You got some actual ammo in your guns, and you aim and shoot with precision.

Except this is still a sailing forum and so far, none of us has been outed as a genuine climate scientist. Which means that, however erudite we speak our peace, we on CF are all farts in the windstorm, in terms of actually resolving the issue or advancing knowledge.

From 20,000 ft the central climate issue is still this: approx 95% of the subject matter experts contend that human activity is materially affecting climate and the long-term effects could be serious; and arrayed in opposition to this conclusion are... the massively profitable fossil-fuel industries and their "scientific" proxies. And they're currently winning. With your help.

So, we can all Google away for more bullets and maybe win some mini-arguments on a sailing forum, but the fact remains that the vested interests, are attacking the people best-positioned to make sense of the whole scenario, and the scientific process itself.

Why do you (or anyone) want to side with the vested interests against... science?

I realize that many here are just looking for cheap forum thrills. Kind of like getting your jollies debating the Holocaust, though, isn't it?

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're wrong about Wrong being wrong.

You're wrong about Kenomac being wrong about wrong being wrong but I'm probably wrong.
Seriously, I hope we become extinct soon and just get it over with.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

"We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.

JOHN MCCAIN, speech, May 12, 2008"

"Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense.

RONALD REAGAN, State of the Union address, Jan. 25, 1984"


dave

I doubt any rational person would dispute with Reagan over the need to be good stewards of the environment. But I also doubt he would want have wanted to spend trillions 'fighting' something of little importance, like manmade CO2, since it would mean you would have a less productive, less prosperous society. Which is what we are becoming, of course.

And John McCain needn't worry. Since he made that political speech in 2008, the earth hasn't warmed a bit even though CO2 has increased. In fact, 2008 was noted in this UK Telegraph article as the year AGW was disproved. John's timing always has been terrible...

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved - Telegraph

But I'm curious Dave. If you believe that anthropogenic CO2 causes warming, and we haven't warmed for almost 2 decades, do you take as support for this belief jackdale's (insert sailing credentials here) assertion that it is the warming effect of CO2 that has offset what should have been cooling during the recent low sunspot numbers of cycle 24? This is a serious question, and I think jackdale is onto something.

As the graph below shows, the number of sunspots began to drop at the same time that the average global temperatures stabilized, and at a time when atmospheric CO2 increased from natural sources from 360 ppm to 384 ppm and from human sources from 15 to 16 ppm. So from the perspective of an AGW fan, the only explanation for why we didn't cool during reduced sunspots has to be because CO2 must be warming us, right? And for the last 15 years or so, that warming has offset cooling from reduced solar irradiance, hence the flattening of the temperature curve. Your thoughts?

[Wrong]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

You're wrong about Kenomac being wrong about wrong being wrong but I'm probably wrong.
Seriously, I hope we become extinct soon and just get it over with.

Look, nobody is Wrong but me. Everyone else is incorrect about saying someone else is wrong. Comprende?

Wrong

[Teknav]

Hiya Wrong! I got to give it to you, bud! You've been taking so much abuse lately; this is Wrong! Coconut ice cream with husks, on the way!

Mauritz
The mule is not for sale!

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I appreciate that you're not just firing from the hip. You got some actual ammo in your guns, and you aim and shoot with precision.

Except this is still a sailing forum and so far, none of us has been outed as a genuine climate scientist. Which means that, however erudite we speak our peace, we on CF are all farts in the windstorm, in terms of actually resolving the issue or advancing knowledge.

From 20,000 ft the central climate issue is still this: approx 95% of the subject matter experts contend that human activity is materially affecting climate and the long-term effects could be serious; and arrayed in opposition to this conclusion are... the massively profitable fossil-fuel industries and their "scientific" proxies. And they're currently winning. With your help.

So, we can all Google away for more bullets and maybe win some mini-arguments on a sailing forum, but the fact remains that the vested interests, are attacking the people best-positioned to make sense of the whole scenario, and the scientific process itself.

Why do you (or anyone) want to side with the vested interests against... science?

I realize that many here are just looking for cheap forum thrills. Kind of like getting your jollies debating the Holocaust, though, isn't it?

You speak of science as if it were a monolithic building with a single door. In fact, it is comprised of thousands of disciplines where work in one area may be ignored by workers in another area until some third party puts it together to make a real breakthrough. Arguing that a perspective is valid on the basis of 'consensus' is about an unscientific as one can get. Eugenics was the consensus not very long ago, leading to the belief that black people are inherently inferior to white people. This was taught in schools, laws were passed on its basis - heck we fought a war largely in part over this issue. As recently as 1950 lobotomies were the consensus treatment for a range of mental illnesses, which is why one of the Kennedy sister's had one. A Nobel Prize was given (just like Al Gore's) for the man who came up with the idea that an ice pick to the frontal lobes was the cure for Schizophrenia. So please, spare me the argument that I should take the AGW 'science' seriously because the majority of climate scientists who receive grants from political agencies to provide proof of something those political entities want proved think mankind's 16 ppm contribution to 400 ppm total atmospheric CO2 is worth regulating ourselves into an economic coma over.

So your last question can be easily turned around. Why do you (or anyone) want to side with politicians against the best interests of humankind? The hundreds of millions Mr. Obama spent building wind farms in California produces nothing of value, and could have been spent on cancer research. How could anyone support pissing money away when it could be put to good use?

Solar science is not climate science, although the two are interwoven. Sunspot activity produces demonstrable changes in earth's climate. Sunspot activity changes, and lo and behold, earth's climate changes right along with it. We are right now, today, being told by the 'subject matter experts' that sun cycle 25 will have either NO sunspots (just like the little ice age), or very, very few. So, from a scientific standpoint, please explain how a reduction in sunspots will not reduce average global temperatures, since it has been for 4 billion years quite predictably?

Then, explain from a scientific standpoint how, if average global temperatures drop, the oceans won't also cool, and if cooled, please explain how that will have no effect on CO2 outgassing? Otherwise, I have to assume that if the ocean cools, atmospheric CO2 will drop, and AGW fans will have to find another hobby.

My suggestion that the only practical thing mankind can do to counter the effects of sun cycle 25 is to pump CO2 into the atmosphere is not a facetious statement, but the logical consequence of accepting that such manmade contributions warm the planet. If they don't, then shut up already. If they do, then we better fire up our '57 Chevies because we're going to get really cold if we don't.

[Celestialsailor]

Originally Posted by Wrong

What, me worry? You've got some great ideas how we might turn the situation around. Especially ripping up the parking lots. My idea though is to plant veggies and fruit trees for food. Talk about ripping stuff up - how about the water guzzling lawns everyone dumps pesticides onto. Great ideas for starters.

Originally Posted by Wrong

Look, nobody is Wrong but me. Everyone else is incorrect about saying someone else is wrong. Comprende?

Wrong

You're right Wrong about being Wrong...right? I better stop...we're trying to have our 3rd serious discussion about AGW. We need to get it right...right Wrong?

[Wrong]

Please forgive my intrusion, since the question (diatribe) was not directed to me.

You say,

[/QUOTE]So your last question can be easily turned around. Why do you (or anyone) want to side with politicians against the best interests of humankind? The hundreds of millions Mr. Obama spent building wind farms in California produces nothing of value, and could have been spent on cancer research. How could anyone support pissing money away when it could be put to good use?[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to presuppose you believe supplanting 'dirty' energy production technologies is a bad thing. But there are proponents of 'clean' energy production technologies such as wind, solar, tide and hydrogen as a fuel who will be happy to see, in particular, coal eliminated as a fuel source in energy production. Particulates figure into estimates of harm to health in addition to the suspected effects CO2 has on the environment.

The only people who judge investments in wind, solar, tide and other possible substitutes for petroleum as an energy source a waste of money are probably proponents of centralized production and distribution of energy.

Hopefully, what you've referred to as wasted money will serve to also replace 'dirty' energy technologies in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.

Coal and gas lose to Solar in Germany and the Netherlands

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Ah, so you're back on imaginary chemistry where 384 ppm CO2 from natural sources is benign, but 16 ppm of the same molecule warrants spending and taxing ourselves to penury to reduce it. Thanks for the math lesson.

But if manmade CO2 is so special then it's the ideal weapon to counter the expected cooling from sunspot cycle 25, since it had been so effective preventing us from cooling in the current cycle, achieving as we have the bliss of climate equilibrium.

Where did the 384 pm & 16 ppm numbers come from?

I don't see what's so difficult to grasp but you still don't get it. Nothing to do with human co2 being "less benign", it just leads to an increase as more is being released than is being absorbed. Not difficult.

And we don't have the bliss of climate equilibrium, it has spiked upwards near instantly in the past century or so.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by conachair

Where did the 384 pm & 16 ppm numbers come from?

I don't see what's so difficult to grasp but you still don't get it. Nothing to do with human co2 being "less benign", it just leads to an increase as more is being released than is being absorbed. Not difficult.

And we don't have the bliss of climate equilibrium, it has spiked upwards near instantly in the past century or so.

And you think I have trouble with math?

Atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm. 96% comes from natural causes, or 384 ppm. 4% from manmade sources, or 16 ppm. Yes, CO2 is increasing because less is being sequestered than is being produced, but that doesn't change the fact that 96% of what is produced is far beyond the capacity of government planners to affect, and unless we come to the ideal Conachair world where a majority of humanity is dead and the remainder huddled around campfires, the 4% of current human contributions is at most subject to a small reduction.

No wonder you're so confused.

Since temperatures haven't changed in almost 20 years, isn't that the very definition of equilibrium, or do you have another kind of equilibrium, like the special molecule associated with human sourced CO2 that has other properties? And if we have reached equilibrium with increasing CO2, what again is your argument for messing that up by reducing carbon emissions? Won't that disrupt equilibrium, or is CO2 not a factor in warming?

[David_Old_Jersey]

I've just realised what's wrong with these Climate Change threads - the posts are wayyy too long, my bet is that the only person who reads them is the writer........

IMO Climate Change is best discussed (and solved?) on Facebook - using the magick of simple words stuck onto pictures..........which is scientific proof that if Man Made (Warming / Cooling / Change / Staying the Same) is real then we are all doomed.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Wrong

I'm not going to presuppose you believe supplanting 'dirty' energy production technologies is a bad thing. But there are proponents of 'clean' energy production technologies such as wind, solar, tide and hydrogen as a fuel who will be happy to see, in particular, coal eliminated as a fuel source in energy production. Particulates figure into estimates of harm to health in addition to the suspected effects CO2 has on the environment.

The only people who judge investments in wind, solar, tide and other possible substitutes for petroleum as an energy source a waste of money are probably proponents of centralized production and distribution of energy.

Hopefully, what you've referred to as wasted money will serve to also replace 'dirty' energy technologies in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world.

Coal and gas lose to Solar in Germany and the Netherlands

No, I am all in favor of generating energy in as clean a fashion as possible. I am against massive public investments in solar that fail because the product produced makes no economic sense. I am also against building wind farms that require that you build 80% of the carbon based generation you would have had without the wind farm to provide energy during the time when the wind isn't blowing hard enough. There are mornings when those massively expensive and maintenance intensive wind farms in California are complete motionless. You think the people hooked up to the electrical grid don't use electricity during those time periods? If they do use it, where do you suppose that energy comes from? Wind is a complete waste of money, except on sailboats.

Hydrogen? All for it, and it has a great future. Tidal, yeah, maybe, but not much juice can be produced from tidal. Small pebble bed reactors? Now there's the ticket, if you can get left wing loonies to stand down.

No one likes coal, although there are technologies that have made it far cleaner than ever before and those make sense because they actually do something to help clean the air.

[Capt Phil]

Hey, DOJ... here come the mods"... time to start another climate thread! Cheers, Phil

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Capt Phil

Hey, DOJ... here come the mods"... time to start another climate thread! Cheers, Phil

I will let someone else start Part IV .

Am putting this one on ignore .