Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Paulus]

41 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Half of them are like me.  Healthy, scientific skeptics.

Here too, the word "skeptic" get vilified. 

 

That said, I still think most people are in the middle on this issue. 

23 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

 

 

I don't think it's worth being offended over - ignorance is everywhere, and it'll drive you insane of you let it get to you.

 

But since you appear to have a thing about smog, I would suggest that it's as much a product of weather, climate, and geography as it is of man.

Smog is just the most obvious piece of evidence, I could think of off the top of my head, which any rational person would be able to admit to themselves is a man made problem and changes the climate. I mean, it is inarguable.

 

If you really deny smog being man-made just look at pictures of LA before and after the implementation of emission control (catalytic converters). 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Paulus

[Azalin]

15 minutes ago, Paulus said:

Here too, the word "skeptic" get vilified. 

 

That said, I still think most people are in the middle on this issue. 

Smog is just the most obvious piece of evidence I could think of, that any rational person would be able to admit to themselves is a man made problem and changes the climate. 

 

If you really deny smog being man-made just look at pictures of LA before and after the implementation of emission control (catalytic converters). 

 

The word itself is a portmanteau: smoke + fog = smog. The mist is a combination of smoke and naturally occurring fog, so by definition is only partly man-made. Geography also plays a role in that fog tends to settle in lower-lying areas.

 

I'm not trying to be picky. Things need to be properly defined and understood before anything can be done to solve them.

[Cugalabanza]

43 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Half of them are like me.  Healthy, scientific skeptics.

 

Nobody in here is like you.  And the majority position, in this thread at least, is not something I'd call healthy skepticism.  They claim whacky stuff like "If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles." 

 

Edited January 19, 2018 by Cugalabanza

[Paulus]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

The word itself is a portmanteau: smoke + fog = smog. The mist is a combination of smoke and naturally occurring fog, so by definition is only partly man-made. Geography also plays a role in that fog tends to settle in lower-lying areas.

 

I'm not trying to be picky. Things need to be properly defined and understood before anything can be done to solve them.

Fair enough. I just am not a fan of ignoring the connotation just because of a denotation. The smog I speak of, and everyone sees is man-man. I mean, what youre picking at is like claiming a cabinet isn't man-made because wood comes from trees. I smell what youre stepping in, though. 

[Azalin]

1 minute ago, Paulus said:

Fair enough. I just am not a fan of ignoring the connotation just because of a denotation. The smog I speak of, and everyone sees is man-man. I mean, what youre picking at is like claiming a cabinet isn't man-made because wood comes from trees. I smell what youre stepping in, though. 

 

You can choose to characterize it however you wish, but nothing is solved until it is understood, and judging by  your cabinet metaphor, I'm either terrible at making my point or you're terrible at understanding it.

[Koko78]

1 hour ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Nobody in here is like you.  And the majority position, in this thread at least, is not something I'd call healthy skepticism.  They claim whacky stuff like "If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles." 

 

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html

 

Oh, whoops. Don't you look like quite the dumbass?

[3rdnlng]

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/why-did-a-1542-spanish-voyage-refer-to-san-pedro-bay-as-the-bay-of-the-smoke

 

Note: Over the past few weeks, we have looked at what most regard as the first photograph, drawing, and map of Los Angeles. This series on the earliest-known representations of the Los Angeles area concludes with the first written account.

In 1542, a tiny armada of two ships sailed up the California coast, flying the flag of Spain. On board were two-to-three-hundred men, including seamen, soldiers, merchants, and Indian and African slaves.

Disappointment was the expedition's destiny. The viceroy of New Spain had dispatched the ships north in search of legends that had little basis in reality: the mythical Seven Cities of Gold and the elusive Strait of Anián (Northwest Passage). Failing that, Spanish authorities hoped the armada might discover a coastal route west to China and the Spice Islands; little was known then about the shape or size of the Pacific Ocean, and some speculated that North America's western coastline curved round to meet with Asia.

Still, the voyage -- commanded by a onetime conquistador named Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo -- produced the first written observations of the Los Angeles area. They also bestowed on it one of the region's first European names: Baya de los Fumos, or Bay of the Smoke.

[Cugalabanza]

55 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-sun-impact-climate-quantified.html

 

Oh, whoops. Don't you look like quite the dumbass?

 

From what I’ve read, most climate scientists regard the effect of these cycles of sunspots & solar winds as very small, basically a blip compared to the larger warming trend that coincides with the industrial revolution.  And the effects of these solar cycles on climate have been studied for many many years.

 

Even the article you link to claims a maximum effect of half a degree (which is I think, higher than most scientists would grant) and it further states, “this reduction in temperature is significant, even though it will do little to compensate for human-induced climate change.”

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Cugalabanza

[3rdnlng]

http://www.jariiivanainen.net/IceAge2.html

 

Warm climate

 

It is a rather common view that there was an Ice Age in the Earth's past. It has also been said that animals and people lived in the frigid temperatures of this winter that prevailed on Earth. It has also been said that the northernmost and southernmost areas were even colder than nowadays and that there was a thick sheet of ice on their surface.

  But is this consistent with all the facts? If we look at this in the light of the next points, they show the opposite. They show that the Earth experienced a warmer, not a colder climate. This is deduced from the next observations:

 

- Palm and fruit trees have been found in Antarctica, Greenland, Alaska, and Siberia, and these simply could not survive there under the current conditions. Fossils of tropical plants and ferns have also been found in the Antarctic.

 

 - Coal and lignite deposits, that are found in Canada, the Spitzbergen island area, Greenland, and other cold areas are a sign of previously luxuriant vegetation.

 

 - Corals have been found in the Norwegian Sea, the Spitzbergen island area, and polar regions; these only live in warm seas.

 

 - Mollusks and corals, typical species of the Mediterranean, have been found in the North Sea.

 

 -Millions of fossils of animals including crocodiles, lions, antelopes, camels, sheep, cows, rhinoceroses, horses, mastodons, musk oxen, and numerous mammoths have been found in the arctic areas of Siberia and Alaska. These large animals would not have found food and water if the climate had been cold.

 

 - Extremely well preserved fossils of dinosaurs have been found in Alaska, 200 km (124 miles) north of the Arctic Circle. These have also been found in Greenland and Antarctica. For these cold-blooded animals to have survived, the climate must have been warm, not cold.

[row_33]

How long ago is this ice age set at?

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

The case would be much more convincing if the proposed solution wasn't the exact same solution as it is for every "problem".  

 

"Tax the wealthy and redistribute the money."

 

With that, it causes me to toss it into the "not actually a problem, but rather a new racket for communists" pile with most of the other "not actually a problem" problems they've presented over the last century.

 

Edited January 20, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[row_33]

They don’t want movie star or politician or their multi-millionaire friend’s riches to be taken by tax.

 

 

[Paulus]

7 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

You can choose to characterize it however you wish, but nothing is solved until it is understood, and judging by  your cabinet metaphor, I'm either terrible at making my point or you're terrible at understanding it.

I get what you're saying. I also get what you're doing. Dancing around my point. If you refuse to believe that smog was heavily reduced by the regulation of cars (mandatory catalytic converters and smog test) didn't help fix, to some degree, a problem, then I just don't know what to say. 

 

I am just a regular person, but I put a bandaid on long before I fully understood why it worked.

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

I get what you're saying. I also get what you're doing. Dancing around my point. If you refuse to believe that smog was heavily reduced by the regulation of cars (mandatory catalytic converters and smog test) didn't help fix, to some degree, a problem, then I just don't know what to say. 

 

I am just a regular person, but I put a bandaid on long before I fully understood why it worked.

 

You absolutely do not get what I'm doing. I'm telling you that despite man's obvious contribution to the phenomenon known as smog, that it's also dependent on both geographical and weather conditions that man has absolutely nothing to do with, and is in no way a symptom of man made climate change.

 

I'm not dancing around your point, I'm correcting you. How your takeaway from my posts has been that man has nothing to do with smog makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Nanker]

16 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Probably.  But I'd say most of the posters in this forum are firmly in the denier category.

Not here. I’ll stipulate global warming. Ok. Now what are we to do about it? Is it all due to human contributions?

 

Why do volcanic eruptions cause massive global cooling? 20,000 years ago - which is a blink in geological time - you would be standing about 10,000 feet above where you currently are because of the two mile thick glacier that covered much of  North America.

 

What caused it to melt - Neanderthal campfires? We know they ate rabbits. But that’s a lot of campfires. Maybe it was careless Stone Age homeless people who didn’t put out their campfires correctly and set the forests on fire. Oh, but wait. There were no forests around. They were buried under 10,000 feet of ice.  

 

I’m puzzled to explain it in terms that reliably puts the blame on humans. Let’s look at THAT long term bigger picture and settle that first. Then perhaps we can have a better perspective on the current situation. 

[DC Tom]

19 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

Nobody in here is like you.  And the majority position, in this thread at least, is not something I'd call healthy skepticism.  They claim whacky stuff like "If I recall correctly, for the longest time the computer models didn't even account for the sun or its cycles." 

 

 

One of the limitations of computer models is that they don't account for everything.  If they did, they wouldn't be "models," they'd be reality.  

Doesn't mean they're wrong, or useless.  But they are often badly misused - the value of a model is investigative, not predictive.

[DC Tom]

17 hours ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

From what I’ve read, most climate scientists regard the effect of these cycles of sunspots & solar winds as very small, basically a blip compared to the larger warming trend that coincides with the industrial revolution.  And the effects of these solar cycles on climate have been studied for many many years.

 

 

And I've always been suspect of those claims.  Over long time baselines, solar irradiance can vary by as much as 3 watts per square meter on the earth's surface...which doesn't sound like a lot (out of about 1.4 kW per square meter total), but the Little Ice Age was caused in part by a decades-long reduction of between 2-4 watts per square meter.  

 

But then, I'm skeptical of some of those numbers as well - they don't consider the solar wind or solar flares, and the energy charged particles would impart to the upper atmosphere.  And still no one can explain why solar irradiance increases with sunspot activity (which should theoretically cause it to decrease, since - to put it simply - sunspots darken the surface of the sun).  

 

Suffice to say, there's a hell of a lot we don't understand about the sun's impact on climate.  

[B-Man]

MORE FAKING OF THE SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORD

 

 

.

[Nanker]

#fakeclimate

[row_33]

On 1/20/2018 at 1:24 PM, DC Tom said:

 

And I've always been suspect of those claims.  Over long time baselines, solar irradiance can vary by as much as 3 watts per square meter on the earth's surface...which doesn't sound like a lot (out of about 1.4 kW per square meter total), but the Little Ice Age was caused in part by a decades-long reduction of between 2-4 watts per square meter.  

 

But then, I'm skeptical of some of those numbers as well - they don't consider the solar wind or solar flares, and the energy charged particles would impart to the upper atmosphere.  And still no one can explain why solar irradiance increases with sunspot activity (which should theoretically cause it to decrease, since - to put it simply - sunspots darken the surface of the sun).  

 

Suffice to say, there's a hell of a lot we don't understand about the sun's impact on climate.  

 

no no no... CNN declares a 5 second sound bite and says 99.9% of scientists fully agree with the statemenet