2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA

We don't have control. We have influence. Would you like to discuss the difference between control and influence and why we don't have control?

 

You evidently do not understand what falsifying means. The CO2 hypothesis is unfalsifiable. Consensus isn't science, skepticism is. None of the hysterical claims are based in fact.

As Judith Curry, a true scholar, has said to be legit in the current dogma if you want to survive as a scientist:

“a person must not like capitalism or industrial development too much and should favor world government, rather than nations”;

“Climatology is becoming an increasingly dubious science, serving a political project,”

“the policy cart is leading the scientific horse.”

 

It is falsifiable...easily I might add. All you have to do is find one or a set of physical processes that explain the warming that are not CO2.

And you are correct. Consensus is not science. It is the result of science. Skepticism is science via its attempts at falsification. There has been over 100 years of skepticism and as of yet the anthroprogenic or CO2 hypothesis have yet to be falsified. Can you think of another scientific theory which has had as much skeptical contribution? What about one with a 100 year history?

I guess it's kind of like how regulations of CFCs, smoking, sulfur dioxide, pesticides, etc. were also likened to the policy cart leading the scientific horse right? We might as role back those regulations since there are still a few lone dissenters out there right?

 

Thanks for proving you do not know what unfalsifiable means.

Curry:

“Climatology has become a political party with totalitarian tendencies,”

“If you don’t support the UN consensus on human-caused global warming, if you express the slightest skepticism, you are a ‘climate-change denier,’ a stooge of Donald Trump, a quasi-fascist who must be banned from the scientific community.”

“Independence of mind and climatology have become incompatible”

 

Do you disagree that finding a set of physical processes that have nothing to do with CO2 but which can explain the warming would sufficiently falsify that GHG hypothesis?

Or assuming that could not be falsified do you disagree that finding a set of natural causes for the CO2 increase would sufficiently falsify the anthropogenic hypothesis?

I don't disagree with her here. But the same can be said for scientists that support AGW too. They are often labeled as alarmists and even hoaxers and frauds. And yes, the science of climate change has become too political. I level that indictment against scientists like Hansen and Mann as equally as I do against Lindzen, Singer, Easterbrook, etc.

 

We don't have much influence, either.

If the people in the US started grazing in the field, wearing loincloths made of now-extinct cows, and warmed ourselves by basking on rocks, it still wouldn't do anything about the other 85% of carbon production in the rest of the world.

 

California has gotten 18 trillion gallons of rain in February, with more on the way and the Democrats in Sacramento allowed it to all flow into the ocean.

During the past 30 years every bill that Republicans introduced to build dams and reservoirs to capture California's rain during global warming the the Democrats defeated those bills.

https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/new...cle_73317089-25ba-5f76-9663-532738fbb199.html

 

Not true. The paleoclimate record has many examples of sudden warming events that have been caused by a doubling or even less than doubling of CO2 concentration. And we are the primary cause of the CO2 increase today. We have a huge influence on the climate because anthroprenically modulated physical process are dwarfing the naturally modulated physical processes today.

I agree with you on this point.

 

I have no idea if California has an aversion to dams or not. I'll take your word for it. I think it's foolish to have the technology and resources available to mitigate the water shortage problem and yet do nothing about. I mean, if the Hohokam people were able to solve the problem in Arizona more than 1000 years ago then surely California could figure this out as well.

 

Except we don't know if the carbon caused the warming, or the warming caused the carbon.

We also know that we have had extremely sudden cooling events. Was that caused by a precipitous drop in carbon in the atmosphere?

The earth warms and freezes with it's relation and orientation to the sun.

You can experience that right now by going to NY and flying to Alice Springs, Australia.

Same planet, same distance from sun, same "climate", and vastly different temperatures due to the orientation to the sun the spot you're standing on has.

Carbon may have some small affect on global temps, but it is nothing compared to our orientation to the sun.

 

California doesn't have a water problem, just not enough water for 40 million people.

The problem is overpopulation not droughts.

Climate change bigots blame people and cow farts for climate change.

Again overpopulation is the problem. More people means more cows for burgers for low paying burger flipping jobs that means more cow farts that the climate change bigots blame for climate change.

In my life time I have watched California's population quadruple, America's population more than double and the world population double.

 

Yes we do. There are many lines of evidence that tell us this. CO2 concentration is both a cause and an effect of changing temperatures. CO2 causes warming and further releases which causes yet more warming and more releases in a feedback loop.

Coolings are usually more gradual except in time of unusually high volcanic activity or cataclysms. CO2 doesn't normally drop quickly once in the atmosphere.

 

Yeah, that certainly puts more pressure on the water demand.

 

That is definitely in play. But, Milankovitch cycles have periods of tens of thousands of years so they act very slowly. CO2 forcing is several orders of magnitude higher than Milankovitch forcing. Also, we are in a cool phase of the Milankotch cycle that can't explain the warming anyway.

 

Most scientists disagree with the hype offered by environmentalists and some attention hound scientists like Michael Mann. Most scientists do not offer the same certainty about the effects of CO2 that are being proffered by the alarmists. The real consensus is minor and only about a few things like is the Earth warming, or do you think CO2 has an influence. Where the real debate lies is in how much that influence is.

Those scientists that provide inconvenient science to the dogma are labelled deniers.

 

They did the next best thing by voting against a bill which outlawed the murder of infants.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/25/three-democrats-voted-against-infanticide/

 

Well, okay, yeah. I didn't see anywhere in the article that linked this to a reduction in global warming so this is likely the topic for another thread. But for the record I find the idea of infanticide disturbing. Why do we even need a law that protects infants anyway? I mean, shouldn't the right to live already be in effect? Afterall infants are indeed people regardless of whether the birth was wanted or not.

 

Have you stopped breathing yet? Are you actually sure about your last assertion? If biodiversity explodes, CO2 would also be abated, no? Are you planting trees? If not, why not? Did you ride your bicycle to work in the snow? Or aren't you that robust? When do you suppose you'll be part of the solution?

 

I continue to assert it's a simple solution. Stop using data sites that over report the temps. In my little berg alone, the airport where the "official temp" is collected is ALWAYS 2F higher than readings from more residential collection sites less than a mile away. So the temp for our location is always high and always wrong. and the data isn't being corrected. So, stop using bad collection sites and data. ta da...

 

And look at that, last year corn yields reached the highest in recorded human history. It is almost as if crop yields and warming temperatures/atmospheric CO2 concentration are correlated.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/crop0918.pdf

 

Right. Maybe what our additional carbon output will do is mitigate the coming ice age so that 90% of the earth's population doesn't go extinct during this one.

 

And yet the earth temp peaks and then heads into another ice age, and has been doing so for millions of years.

Maybe in another 100,000 years we'll know for sure.

 

Golly.... poor Alexandria will have to wait long after her remaining 11 years.... the shame.... Time isn't ever the friend of a good con though. Whatever will keep her in power??

 

This is serious business, NY will be underwater by 2015 if we don't stop it. This is our WW2. Man the landing craft.

 

Yes. If biomass expands carbon comes out of the atmosphere. But it only does so during the expansion phase. Once the expansion stops the carbon cycle is in equilibrium again all other things being equal of course.

Yes. I'm sure about my last assertion. The paleoclimate record clearly shows that CO2 goes into the atmosphere quickly, but takes much longer to come out. This is actually why humans can't control the climate. It's easy to put CO2 into the atmosphere, but very difficult to pull it out. We turn the dial up, but we can't turn it down.

I'm still breathing. I'm not planting trees. I do not ride my bike to work. I have gotten a more fuel efficient vehicle and I've made my home more energy efficient though. I'm not altruistic. I will gladly participate in the solution as long as there is an incentive to me. The level in which I participate is in proportional to the incentive I receive. Like most people I'm motivated by individual financial gain and general well being for my own family.