Another fun climate change thread

This article in Quantamagazine came out today; it's the most horrifying thing I've ever read.

A state-of-the-art supercomputer simulation indicates that a feedback loop between global warming and cloud loss can push Earth’s climate past a disastrous tipping point in as little as a century.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/cloud-loss-could-add-8-degrees-to-global-warming-20190225/

 

Its like you've never heard of homeostasis

 

I'm sure you'll go into great detail concerning what you've just said.

 

For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a coming ice age, or global warming.

.1895-Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again
– New York Times, February 1895

•1902 -“Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.”
– Los Angeles Times

•1912 - Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age
–New York Times, October 1912

•1923 - “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada” – Professor Gregory of Yale University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, –
Chicago Tribune

•1923 - “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age” –Washington Post

•1924 - MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age–
New York Times, Sept 18, 1924

•1929 - “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer” –
Los Angeles Times

•1932 - “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age” –
The Atlantic magazine, This Cold, Cold World

•1933 - America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
– New York Times, March 27th, 1933

•1933 – “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate changing?”
– Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”

•1938 - Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

•1938 - “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades”
– Chicago Tribune

•1939 - “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer”
-Washington Post

•1952 - “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century”
– New York Times, August 10th, 1962

•1954 - “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing”
– U.S. News and World Report

•1954 - Climate – the Heat May Be Off
– Fortune Magazine

•1959 - “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures”
– New York Times

•1969 - “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two”
– New York Times, February 20th, 1969

•1970 - “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight”
– Washington Post

•1974 - Global cooling for the past forty years
– Time Magazine

•1974 - “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age”
– Washington Post

•1974 - “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed”
– Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger

•1974 - “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence”
– New York Times

•1975 - Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable
– New York Times, May 21st, 1975

•1975 - “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder, editor,
New Scientist magazine, in an article in International
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Welcome to the crowd . . . Maybe this time it's all real.

 

So you are saying these are actual pictures of the arctic in the years given, and thats no doubt all accurate, because they come from NASA?

 

It’s all got to do with radiation. More short wave radiation is emitted by relatively hot objects...and the sun is a very close hot body. This radiation penetrates the atmosphere and warms the earth. Reradiation in turn sends some of the radiation back into space. But... the earth is a colder object than the sun and more of the radiation it emits is longer wave. And CO2 interferes with the reradiaton process and prevents energy loss into space....very effiicienly. Some CO2 is a key component of the earth’s heat budget but human released CO2 overwhelms this process.

The graph is another red herring. It doesn’t take much CO2 to change the heat budget and the percentage change in CO2 we are experiencing is very large. Look at the concentrations of CO2 over time measured at mana loa in Hawaii.

Trump’s science advisors, of course, should know this but don’t seem to be very much involved.

 

Homeostasis is one of the most basic concepts in science.

Everything in nature operates within a delicate equilibrium. Including the human body, to use an analogy you might be able to understand. If your blood alcohol level is .3%, you wouldnt say that alcohol accounts for only .3 % of your blood so whats the big deal? You likely wouldnt say anything because you would be wasted lol

Likewise, it is pretty dishonest to pass 4% off as an insignificant contribution. And you have to keep in mind thats a 4% contribution over a very small period of 200 years or so, versus the millions of years it takes for a steady C02 rise from natural sources

 

So, you're saying that the effect of a percentage of alcohol in the blood stream of a human parallels the effect of that same percentage of co2 in the atmosphere of the planet. I see.

Anyway, what's going to happen to us? And what are you suggesting we do about it? Stop driving? What?

 

I dont know what's going to happen, I just know that humans should take better care of the environment. Even if you are right and anthropogenic climate change is a lie, it wouldnt change anything for me. Humans still have a responsibility to take care of the earth which gives us life.

But anyways to answer your question, I do favor mass public transportation in dense urban areas as well as high speed rail connecting urban areas, in an attempt to cut our dependence on cars. It isnt realistic to say lets eliminate cars of course, but we should be building and promoting systems of rail and other public transportation

Not that that will magically fix everything, it would take massive change on a global scale to really fix anything

 

Hucksters quietly changed the vocabulary just a few years back. Does anyone remember " Global Warming " ? Why the change ? Simple really , it just wasn't working for them anymore. Daily images on everyone's newscasts of six foot snows , -35 degree temps and the Great Lakes frozen solid was a spectacle that made them look like fools.
A change to what ?
Well, simply this in a nutshell ,
if it's hot- climate change
if it's cold -climate change
it it's mild-climate change
if it's normal- climate change
if it rains- climate change
if it doesn't rain- climate change
if it snows-climate change
if it doesn't snow-climate change
if the sun comes up - climate change
if the sun sets- climate change
if there's anything out there that can possibly be described as weather it is in fact climate change and we're to blame for it !

The fact of the matter is Earths climate has always been in a state of flux and always will be, none of us were here but most of North America was under solid ice at one time during the Great Ice Age. Europe was plunged into deep freeze in 1709 with the worst winter in 500 years. The list goes on but history as well as ancient history shows the planets climate has been and always will be in perpetual change .

 

Humans have absolutely nothing to do with the earth's climate. All of the CO2 released by humans has no adverse effects.

*epic 24 hour eye roll*

 

probably you are right, and that is the most problem of humanity nowadays... but no one cares about it...

 

Happily no one seems at odds with this fact. It is jumping to conclusions though to say that therefor we aren't impacting it now.

 

"So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Whether that's from the incriminating emails or not, he's saying that they should make as much noise as possible concerning what they want the public to believe, and keep as quiet as possible concerning what they don't want the public to hear, and to make judgment calls as to when it is expedient to their cause to not be honest. You don't have to worry about people not understanding what this guy was saying; it's more than just a little obvious.

But let's take these one at a time:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,” writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept. of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Go ahead and explain how the above is someone expressing their dispute via email. What's being disputed?

 

So you're saying that manmade global warming is real, but you have no opinion concerning the alleged catastrophes resulting from this warming?

Anyway:

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators:

"Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise."

The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Explain how this is anything other than what it clearly is.

 

A clutching at straws attempt to make the scientific consensus on global warming look malicious and wrong?