There is no Planet B

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I see some of you die hades stipulate to global warming, you just think it’s “natural.”

OK, let me stipulate, as someone extreamly concerned with AWF, that the AIC GND is a terrible recommendation that would make matters worse, not better and I’m opposed to it.

So that is not something we should be arguing about.

Because his argument is going all over the place and getting really hard to follow please allow me to try to understand the Denier position. I’ll say it as I hear it here, if I get it wrong correct me.

Deniers counter theory to AWG is that of the current 1.1°F of change, 1° is due to natural variation and 0.9° is due to AWG.

What is the Denier theory as to the mechanism for this warming? Not a lot of detail right now, just a single concise explanation. Sun spots, ozone, cosmic rays, whatever?

Well, to get the ball rolling, the so called 1850 ish (I've even seen 1750 quoted at times - and that date is closer to the technically correct start date of the industrial revolution, but I digress) baseline occurred during a recognised period of abnormally cold weather.


Continue to join the dots from there.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by hpeer

I see some of you die hades stipulate to global warming, you just think it’s “natural.”

OK, let me stipulate, as someone extreamly concerned with AWF, that the AIC GND is a terrible recommendation that would make matters worse, not better and I’m opposed to it.

So that is not something we should be arguing about.

Because his argument is going all over the place and getting really hard to follow please allow me to try to understand the Denier position. I’ll say it as I hear it here, if I get it wrong correct me.

Deniers counter theory to AWG is that of the current 1.1°F of change, 1° is due to natural variation and 0.9° is due to AWG.

What is the Denier theory as to the mechanism for this warming? Not a lot of detail right now, just a single concise explanation. Sun spots, ozone, cosmic rays, whatever?

actually cooling now and due to solar activity across the spectrum not just the uv that the agw crowd tout as minimal. X-ray has a lot more effect than they will admit.
Do the cmip6 models with solar forcings and not co2 forcings then do it the other way.
You will come up with basically the same end results.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Well, to get the ball rolling, the so called 1850 ish (I've even seen 1750 quoted at times - and that date is closer to the technically correct start date of the industrial revolution, but I digress) baseline occurred during a recognised period of abnormally cold weather.


Continue to join the dots from there.

and connect this for as well it started at the end of the centennial minimum and we went right into the modern grand solar maximum from there peaking in 1957. ( there are lag times for each effect from a month for sunspots and arctic temperatures to 50 years give or take for surface ocean temps to several centuries for deep ocean ( the Argo array just recently found cold water evidence for the lia at 2000 meters deep.)

[StuM]

And following on from yesterday:

[GTom]

The root of all problems is overpopulation. Warming hasn't shown its teeth, the worse we've seen is probably 4-5 major coral bleaching events. On the other hand, humanity decimated marine and land life, trawling, shark finning, deforestation to name a few items from a lengthy list.

Without neglecting the problem, anthropogenic carbon dioxide, especially that from transportation use which is in question here is far not the number one issue of the world.

"Solutions" offered to the problem are also questionable: has anyone calculated the TRUE environmental balance of a cadmium containing photovoltaic panel used in the cloudy Western Europe? Or a 100+tons heavy aluminum wind generator?

Regardless whatever we do we call "environment protection", if our numbers, shear space use keeps growing, life on the planet (including ours) will suffer.

[transmitterdan]

Yeah, people are the disease and getting rid of them is the solution. Man, that old song is getting pretty old.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

actually yes I have but this will keep you busy
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/...ted-in-africa/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/...d-and-oceania/

Interesting, but I saw nothing in the linked Anthony Watts Blogs saying that the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was “warmer than today”.
Nor did the Abstracts of the Scientific Studies, to which Watt referred, say that the MCA was “warmer than today”. (actual Studies behind paywall)
Watt did say: “... There is currently no basis to say that the Modern Warm Period might be much warmer than the MWP in the region.”
Thanks for the links to links.
Once again, though, the references YOU cite, do not support the statements YOU make. Ie: “The mwp was warmer than today”

“Warming and Cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia”
~ by Sebastian Lüning et al.
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017PA003237
“The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world ...
... The vast majority of available Afro Arabian onshore sites suggest a warm MCA, with the exception of the southern Levant where the MCA appears to have been cold ...
... The most likely key drivers of the observed medieval climate change are solar forcing and ocean cycles. Conspicuous cold spikes during the earliest and latest MCA may help to discriminate between solar (Oort Minimum) and ocean cycle (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO) influence ...

“Hydroclimate in Africa during the Medieval Climate Anomaly” ~ by Sebastian Lüning et al.
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...593?via%3Dihub
“... MCA hydroclimate change in Africa appears to have been associated with characteristic phases of ocean cycles, as also supported by modern climate observations ...”

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Interesting, but I saw nothing in the linked Anthony Watts Blogs saying that the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was “warmer than today”.
Nor did the Abstracts of the Scientific Studies, to which Watt referred, say that the MCA was “warmer than today”.
Watt did say: “... There is currently no basis to say that the Modern Warm Period might be much warmer than the MWP in the region.”
Thanks for the links to links.
Once again, though, the references YOU cite, do not support the statements YOU make. Ie: “The mwp was warmer than today”

ok how about the gisp2 ice cores.
Will that help your inner denier

[leftbrainstuff]

Anytime you hear the words climate change or carbon consider using the term 'human impact'.

If the human impact is negative stop doing it or do it less. Conversely if human impact is good then keep doing it. Simple measures, simple solutions and good education is needed.

The whole climate change debacle is a political mess and it's almost impossible to have any sensible debates. Too many scientific luddites (politicians, media, charlatans, etc) latch onto single threaded fud and quickly develop religious beliefs that stop all rational thinking.

Solving climate change is a wicked problem that we barely understand. So if we think stupid nation state targets are a good idea then we are dumber than we look. Wicked problems are policy resistant, irreversible, dependent on history, have effects not simply related to causes and aren't solvable in short political or commercial timeframes.

The planet will always strive to reach an equilibrium regardless of the stupidity of humans. This constantly evolving equilibrium will sometimes be beneficial to humans, sometimes it will be negative.

Here's my take on Human Impact we could tackle today with little impact on economies.

Negative Human Impact
- overfishing
- twice daily single occupant commuting
- unnecessary retail consumption
- city planning that promotes commuting and heat islands
- Tax product packaging at source to force plastics out of common use
- Penalize rampant consumption and incentivize reuse and repair
- Change corporate incentives to mive away from the current rampant cinsumerization model
- Global supply chain to incentivize local produce and local consumption

Positive Human Impact
- Renewables and non grid dependent services, specifically energy, water and sewer
- Reforestation
- Marine parks
- Remote work and telecommuting
- Anti poaching

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Interesting, but I saw nothing in the linked Anthony Watts Blogs saying that the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was “warmer than today”.
Nor did the Abstracts of the Scientific Studies, to which Watt referred, say that the MCA was “warmer than today”. (actual Studies behind paywall)
Watt did say: “... There is currently no basis to say that the Modern Warm Period might be much warmer than the MWP in the region.”
Thanks for the links to links.
Once again, though, the references YOU cite, do not support the statements YOU make. Ie: “The mwp was warmer than today”

“Warming and Cooling: The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Africa and Arabia”
~ by Sebastian Lüning et al.
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....2/2017PA003237
“The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) is a well recognized climate perturbation in many parts of the world ...
... The vast majority of available Afro Arabian onshore sites suggest a warm MCA, with the exception of the southern Levant where the MCA appears to have been cold ...
... The most likely key drivers of the observed medieval climate change are solar forcing and ocean cycles. Conspicuous cold spikes during the earliest and latest MCA may help to discriminate between solar (Oort Minimum) and ocean cycle (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, AMO) influence ...

“Hydroclimate in Africa during the Medieval Climate Anomaly” ~ by Sebastian Lüning et al.
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...593?via%3Dihub
“... MCA hydroclimate change in Africa appears to have been associated with characteristic phases of ocean cycles, as also supported by modern climate observations ...”

I suppose you glossed over the bit about solar forcings which are a big part of what I have been trying to explain to the natural climate change deniers .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

Anytime you hear the words climate change or carbon consider using the term 'human impact'.

If the human impact is negative stop doing it or do it less. Conversely if human impact is good then keep doing it. Simple measures, simple solutions and good education is needed.

The whole climate change debacle is a political mess and it's almost impossible to have any sensible debates. Too many scientific luddites (politicians, media, charlatans, etc) latch onto single threaded fud and quickly develop religious beliefs that stop all rational thinking.

Solving climate change is a wicked problem that we barely understand. So if we think stupid nation state targets are a good idea then we are dumber than we look. Wicked problems are policy resistant, irreversible, dependent on history, have effects not simply related to causes and aren't solvable in short political or commercial timeframes.

The planet will always strive to reach an equilibrium regardless of the stupidity of humans. This constantly evolving equilibrium will sometimes be beneficial to humans, sometimes it will be negative.

Here's my take on Human Impact we could tackle today with little impact on economies.

Negative Human Impact
- overfishing
- twice daily single occupant commuting
- unnecessary retail consumption
- city planning that promotes commuting and heat islands
- Tax product packaging at source to force plastics out of common use
- Penalize rampant consumption and incentivize reuse and repair
- Change corporate incentives to mive away from the current rampant cinsumerization model
- Global supply chain to incentivize local produce and local consumption

Positive Human Impact
- Renewables and non grid dependent services, specifically energy, water and sewer
- Reforestation
- Marine parks
- Remote work and telecommuting
- Anti poaching

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by hpeer

Deniers counter theory to AWG is that of the current 1.1°F of change, 1° is due to natural variation and 0.9° is due to AWG.

What is the Denier theory as to the mechanism for this warming? Not a lot of detail right now, just a single concise explanation. Sun spots, ozone, cosmic rays, whatever?

I can help you on this.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon. It is been around all the time. The major heat source is the sun and the hot core of the planet resulting of the energy unleashed by a huge impact with another planet long time ago. Since the the earth is slowly cooling, the surface is becomming thicker, we got a water surface with oceans and land masses, there is stil a lot of vulcanic activity, also external events like asteroids hat a big impact on climate in the past.

Another driver is the magnetic system, that is also changing and flipping from time to time, the biosphere plays a role too, we humans are part of it. The earth had in the past high CO2 concentrations and humidity, and also ages with almost O2 and N2 athmosphere with no CO2. During times with high co2, plants were dominant life forms, but almost extinct as co2 was all taken out of the system leading to near extinction, the life found a way of recycling and using the poisonous O2 to degrade all the dead plants and recover the energy stored, the next level of evolution was the one of predators, that eat the plant eaters, where we are now.

It was also always an up and down of dominant species during different ages, they are successfull to a certain level and extinct other species but then are overtaken and die out. Now we and the cockroaches are on the top for a while and will follow one day the dinos fate.

All this is natural and nothing to worry about. This ups and downs happen usually not during the lifespan of a single generation, and same applies to us. The next generation will not know much about our lifestyle and our chores, they will have their own, their successor will rise in a slightly different world with the then existing circumstances. If life gets difficult, there will be naturally a decreasing population. Nature regulates it. If there is one monoculture, nature finds a species to benefit of it and destroy it, it could be bacteria, viruses, insects or whatever, no ressource stays forever unused, but by the specialisation on this food this species advantage is also the reason she will extinct later when the resource vanishes.

I am optimistic of the future, we would not want to live in the stone age, nor in the medieval slavery or any past times just to keep the status quo, why would we enforce this on our children to live the way we think appropriate? Every generation must find their own way. There is no way back.

So this BS about climat change and safe the planet is nonsense. We have to behave somehow responsible but not overreact. We are what we are because we used our brain and the accessible ressources and the next generation will do the same. Some resources may end, other will be found.

The earth is a closed system, material does not disappear, it is still there, sometimes in a different form. All the oil and coal was there before as CO2, then eaten by plants and taken off the system, we close the circle and release it back for the generations of plants to come. We are a product of nature, the missing link, to close the circle of life and give it a new kick.

[GTom]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

I can help you on this.

Climate change is a natural phenomenon.

It's hard to call ANYTHING natural on this planet, since every square mile carries the marks of human intervention, let it be a plastic bottle in the ocean or an abandoned mine in the "middle of nowhere".
However, the root of the problem is not that you filled your tank today, but that our ancestors cut most (90%?) forests in Europe, tropical rainforest areas are also decimated and being cut in this very moment. The "very green" German government is exiting nuclear: guess what they got instead: low quality coal, requires deforestation to be extracted... Solar farms there (also occupying space from forests!) produce a tiny fraction of their nominal capacity - a far worse balance than e.g. in Nevada, where no tree has to be cut to install a solar array and you get plenty of sunshine. Stupidity is the biggest enemy of mankind.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by GTom

It's hard to call ANYTHING natural on this planet, since every square mile carries the marks of human intervention, let it be a plastic bottle in the ocean or an abandoned mine in the "middle of nowhere".
However, the root of the problem is not that you filled your tank today, but that our ancestors cut most (90%?) forests in Europe, tropical rainforest areas are also decimated and being cut in this very moment. The "very green" German government is exiting nuclear: guess what they got instead: low quality coal, requires deforestation to be extracted... Solar farms there (also occupying space from forests!) produce a tiny fraction of their nominal capacity - a far worse balance than e.g. in Nevada, where no tree has to be cut to install a solar array and you get plenty of sunshine. Stupidity is the biggest enemy of mankind.

Totally agree. Green nonsense, same for bio-fuel, damages the engines and reduces the agricultural area for food production - simply silly.

Individuals do individual damages, the environment can cope with it somehow, but when it comes to planned approach and action, the damages get to a whole new level and are much more severe.

That is why I oppose this safe the planet and time for action BS.

A chaotic system, as life is, finds an equilibrium of forces, more or less stable easily and single events or gradual changes do move it a little, but nothing serious, it recovers or swings back now ant then.

A concerted action will kick it for sure out of balance with unforeseeable results. Our "scientists" barely understand chaotic systems, especially when focused on a single issue like man made warming or CO2, they do not see the big picture, they even are surprised, that their forecasts are wrong for decades, but still insist and claim peer-reviewed consent to have found the holy grale.

Nature can easy deal with individuals and species, but society is a major thread to the system. It get worse when it gets to a global level.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok how about the gisp2 ice cores.
Will that help your inner denier

Don Easterbrook relies on temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a proxy for global temperatures, indicating that virtually all of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.
Easterbrook’s claim that “most (9,100) of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.

“Easterbrook’s wrong (again)” ~ by Gareth Renowden
➥ http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

“The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland” ~ by Richard B. Alley
➥ https://scinapse.io/papers/2110116713

“Heartland’s Big Book Of Lies About Climate Change cuts no ice, thanks to Don Easterbrook” ~ by Gareth Renowden
➥ https://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/201...n-easterbrook/

“GISP2 Ice Core Temperature and Accumulation Data” ~ Richard Alley
➥ ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pal..._alley2000.txt

Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming
➥ https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

“The Don Easterbrook Problem” ~ by Dan McShane
➥ https://washingtonlandscape.blogspot...k-problem.html

In response to Easterbrook’s presentation to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee, faculty members of the Western Washington University geology department wrote a letter to the Bellingham Herald

By WWU GEOLOGY FACULTY — COURTESY TO THE BELLINGHAM HERALD
“On March 26, 2013, a long-retired faculty member of our department, Don Easterbrook, presented his opinions on human-caused global climate change to the Washington State Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee at the invitation of the committee chair Sen. Doug Ericksen, R.-Ferndale. We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic. We also decry the injection of such poor quality science into the public discourse regarding important policy decisions for our state's future ...
... Easterbrook's ideas on anthropogenic global warming have not passed through rigorous peer review in the scientific literature. Additionally, Easterbrook's claims in this forum and elsewhere require the existence of a broad, decades-long conspiracy amongst literally thousands of scientists to falsify climate data and to prevent publication of opposing research. This opinion demonstrates a profound rejection of the scientific process and the fundamental value of rigorous peer review, and is also simply wrong....”
More ➥ https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/04/...-is-angry.html

“Don Easterbrook's research misconduct” ~ by Tim Lambert
➥ https://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/201...caught-in-a-li

Don Easterbrook’s Position:

“Easterbrook on the magnitude of Greenland GISP2 ice core data” ~ from WUWT
➥ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/...ice-core-data/

“Global Cooling Is Coming -- and Beware the Big Chill, Scientist Warns” ~ Fox News
➥ https://www.foxnews.com/science/glob...cientist-warns