A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is coming true next week

The main driver of the spectacular increase in the global standard of living has been the availability and utilization of fossil fuels which are used to produce inexpensive energy available 24/7/365. That is very clear from the historical record. We are not even close to being sble to produce that standard of energy availability with wind and solar which together account for less than 5% of total energy utilization. The only viable sources to replace fossil fuels in some applications are nuclear and to a lesser extent hydroelectric and geothermal.

 

If the bearings in a see saw were perfect and the load were equally divided, then a small rock added to one side would definitely start movement.

Once again, look at the page that is numbered 136 in this document:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg1-chapter2-1.pdf

It contains a chart of the effect of CO2 in watts per square meter of Earth's surface.

It gives the effect of other factors, too. Some we can change. Others not so much. So, the focus tends to move to the factors we can change, the human causes - CO2 being the major one.

That diagram includes the error bars indicating how well each factor is understood.

 

And I could probably produce a chart that lists the number of bear attacks based on the number of people in LA that wear Green shirts.

And it could be equally meaningless.

I read your sentence multiple times, and still can not figure out exactly what that was supposed to mean, let alone what it was supposed to tell me. Here, let me say it again, see if it makes any more sense.

Effect of CO2 in watts per square meters of the planet's surface.

Nope, still makes not a damned bit of sense. It is about as meaningless as those that show satellite images every summer in the Northern Hemisphere showing the "Ozone Holes" appearing over Antarctica. Or the ones they show every summer in the Southern Hemisphere showing the ozone holes over the Arctic.

Great for fooling the non-scientific, because it sure sounds impressive, and normally comes with all kinds of scare claims that it means the end of the world unless we do something. Meanwhile, I look at it and largely laugh because I know snake oil when I see it.

 

The above is the result of relying on one unreliable source. What is the basis of your assertion that there iz a perfect balance of CO2 and that the addition of a small quantity of manmade CO2 will result in a tipping point?

Do you realize that every species alive today evolved when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 1000 and 2000 ppm?

 

Does not matter, as they are completely unscientific and scream at anybody that actually does understand how it works.

Like how permanent polar ice caps are an aberration on our planet, and through most of the history of the planet there were none.

And that the typical geologic measure that the planet is in an interglacial is that the cap over the Arctic completely vanishes.

We are still in an ice age, but it is ending. And sometime in the next dozen thousand years or so the Arctic Ice Cap will indeed vanish. That is a geological fact. Yet they run around screaming that such has never happened before, it is "proof" of their global warming scare.

Hell, funny thing is I admit the planet is warming. And that things are going to get a hell of a lot hotter in the future, as well as humid.

That is another thing they get completely wrong. They equate heat with things being dry. However, it is a fact that ice ages are the driest times in recent geological history (say the last 50 million years or so). It is the interglacials that are the wettest. That is why I laugh whenever they scream about "Global droughts caused by global warming". The only reason things seem that way now is our planet is literally still trying to recover from the last ice age, and much of the plants have yet to return to it's normal ranges and the humidity and rainfall has yet to rise to a level to push the deserts back again.

They are literally seeing a planet in change, moving from one extreme to another. Like it has been doing for millions of years. But they try to pretend that the average temperatures during the "Little Ice Age" are actually the norm for our planet. As I have said, like putting a thermometer inside your refrigerator, and saying that is the normal temperature inside you house.

 

Yes - you can totally write off the entire product of all science as garbage without having any evidence for doing so.

However, that's is an incredibly nonsensical idea.

 

That is NOT one source.

It is a combination of work in numerous fields of science, carried out the world over.

Tipping point?? I didn't say anything about a tipping point. The more CO2 added to our atmosphere means more heat is trapped by Earth's atmosphere (instead of radiating to space). That's cause and effect, not a tipping point.

Tipping points have to do with points after which returning to a prior state is very hard.

 

Your response proves my point. There is no direct cause and effect between CO2 concentration and global temperature. Never has been and never will be. CO2 concentration is nog a temperature control knob.

 

And once again, you completely miss what I said.

As expected.

 

The point I was making is that there is concurrence on the cause/effect nature of CO2 coming from many areas of study.

There is confirmation.

 

There is not. Look at the historical record. There is no continuous relationship of increasing temperature directly correlated to increasing CO2 concentration.

 

Which can be entirely coincidental. And should not be taken on that alone as a factual connection.

Temperatures are rising, and apparently mass shootings are increasing also. Are they connected? Which of the two is driving the other?

That is not science, that is known as "gaming the data" and trying to make the data fit the hypothesis.

Always a failure.

 

And a case in point, there is a hell of a lot of evidence that it is the glaciers melting that is causing the CO2 rise.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2...arbon-dioxide-levels-due-to-these-tiny-fungi/

It is a known fact that at the height of the last Ice Age, over 8% of the surface of the planet was covered in glaciers. Which not only created a huge albedo effect that dropped temperatures even lower (something I have mentioned repeatedly), it also locked everything on the surface at the time quite literally into a freezer so there was little decomposition.

Today, the percentage of the surface covered in glaciers is around 3%. That means a hell of a lot of organic material that was once under glaciers is finally being broken down. In addition, the ecology in those areas is only starting to recover. Where the most advanced plants are generally lichen and moss, not very efficient or effective in absorbing CO2 when compared to other plants.

This once again is the kind of thing that Geologists have known for a long time, and why far less of them than any other "specialty" take the "global warming" very seriously. We have seen these cycles over and over again, and know that the CO2 levels go up after an ice age. They always have, and always will. And a great many like myself believe the increased CO2 levels are mostly natural, and not driving "global warming". It is the natural global warming that is driving increased CO2 levels.

 

Scientists measure how CO2 affects transparency of our atmosphere to heat leaving Earth. They do the same for other chemistry that is found at various elevations in our atmosphere.

The same is true concerning the level of transparency of our atmosphere to incoming solar radiation - a very different wavelength than departing heat.

The idea that climate science is a bunch of coincidences is just not even slightly supportable.

 

And what does that have to do with anything I just said?

Once again, you apparently fail to understand anything I just wrote, so just make something up that sounds impressive.

 

The effects of CO2 in our atmosphere are studied by scientists throughout the world. This is obviously a central issue of climate change.

You appear to be trying to claim that climate scientists are finding correlation, not causation.

But, that is not the case. Scientists have identified how CO2 slows heat loss to outer space - which is all it has to do to change Earth's temperature.

 

There is no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global average temperature. A cursory inspection of the current modern warming period which started in the 1880’s clearly shows that. The current warming period is the tenth such warming which has occurred in the Holocene period. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but it is not the global temperature control knob that alarmists profess. And in fact global warming is beneficial. The consensus of economic analyses which consider both benefits and costs shows this.

 

Actually, it started over 11,000 years ago. With many periods between then and now that were warmer than it even is today.

 

Right.

And once again, this to you is not science, it is a religion. And like a fanatic you ignore or dismiss anything that does not agree with your beliefs.

 

Yes. There is evidence that the maximum CO2 atmospheric concentration was ~ 8000 ppm at one point. Wd are actually in a period of CO2 deficiency. At a concentration of ~ 180 ppm CO2 plant life can not survive. We got down to ~ 250 ppm in the Holocene. The typical CO2 concentration in the natural history of the world is 1000 - 2000 ppm.

 

And CO2 levels are often very different from temperature.

For example, the CO2 levels in the MWP were around 115 PPM lower than they are today. Yet, the temperatures then were higher than they are today. And so many are following essentially "junk science", and the problem is that they believe it without question.

Earlier this year, I saw the following article and laughed my head off.

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/04/april-sets-record-highest-co2-levels

And what I was laughing at was the title. "April sets record for highest CO2 levels in human history". Because that is not what it shows at all, just the highest in recorded history where such measurements were taken. Which started in 1958.

Well, we know that "humans" are a hell of a lot older than that. Over 300,000 years for "modern humans", around 3.4 million years when the Hominid line broke from the Hominini line and evolved away from the Panina Pan line (modern chimps). And there are a great many time periods that CO2 levels were higher than today, most especially during an interglacial (which we are in today). But junk science with headlines like that convince people something that is not true.

But why did they say "human history" instead of a more accurate "recorded history"? No idea, but that level of disinformation suggests to me that they are following some kind of agenda. And I find it interesting that Axios is a huge pusher for "direct air capture" technology. Yet another form of junk science that many seem to love that do not understand how things really work.

And technically, we have been in an ice age for almost the entire existence of humans. Our current one actually started around 2.6 mya, when Australopithecus was first starting to use rocks as tools. We are still living in that ice age, and are in our seventh interglacial of the current cycle. In fact, we are nowhere near the "highest temperature" of even the last half million years.



But as a geologist, I find it fascinating that in the geological record we have interglacials with lower CO2 levels recorded in the sea cores, as well as higher CO2 levels. And those are really our best timeline of conditions on our planet for the last 6 million years or so. That is a hell of a lot longer back than ice cores go (130-800 kya). And yes, we have pulled up ice samples going back 2 mya, but because of compression and other factors they are largely curiosities and do not have a lot of really good data.

 

It's clear that climate change will be catastrophically expensive. There is nothing about agriculture or whatever that could possibly match the numerous down sides of an Earth warmed by CO2 and the increase in other gasses that cause heat to be retained on Earth, rather than dissipated into space.

There were past warming periods, but that does not counter the fact that a warming planet presents huge problems for the human population that is here today.

 

I have not posted anything that isn't mainstream science on sites such as IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc.

But, I do tend to ignore stuff that is not supported by mainstream science or doesn't even come with a cite concerning where the poster found their info.

 

That is not the case. There is no climate catastrophe. The best policy is to use unlimited amounts of inexpensive fossil fuel energy which will maximize economic growth creating the wealth required to adapt to a warmer climate. The cost will be approximately one global gdp year out of next 100 years. But the gain will be a factor of ~ 2X global wealth. And most of the costs will be for additional air conditioning. The only catastrophe will be the harm done to low income people and third world countries resulting from absurd green energy policies.

 

Please cite that claim.